N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ZDR AVKO KOTZEV, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C HARLES L. R

YAN, in his individua

l and offic ia l c a

pa c itie s a s Dire c tor of the Ariz ona De pa rtm e nt of C orre c tions; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-16167 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-00907-FJM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Fre de ric k J. M artone , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2014 ** B e fore : C LIFTON, B EA, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Form e r Ariz ona

sta te prisone r Zdravko Kotz e v a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging c onstitutiona

l viola t ions in c onne c tion with his inc arc e ration a n d c om m unity 

# FIL ED MAY29 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).supe rvision. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo

sum m ary judgm e nt a

nd the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l unde r Fe d . R . C iv. P. 12(b)(6). Doev . Abbott Labs. , 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th C ir. 2009). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Kotz e v’ s c l a im for forc ible spousa l se pa ration a ga i nst de fe nda

nts R y an a nd B utc he r be c a

use Kotz e v fa ile d to a lle ge fa c t s suffic ie nt to link de fe n da nts to a ny c onstitutiona

l viola tion. Se eAshc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to survive a m otion to dism

iss, a pla intiff m

ust a lle ge fa c ts tha

t “ a llow [ ] the c ourt to dra wthe re a sona

ble infe re nc e tha

t the de fe nda nt is lia ble for the m isc o nduc t a lle g e d” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Kotz e v’ s inte ntiona l inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss c la im be c a use R y an a n d B utc he r are im

m une unde r Ariz ona la w. Se e Ariz . R e v. Stat. § 31-201.01(F) (“Any and a ll c a

use s of a c tion whic h m ay arise out of tort c a

use d by the dire c tor, prison offic e rs or e m ploy e e s of the de pa rtm e nt, within the

sc ope of the ir le ga l duty , sha ll run only a ga inst thesta

te .” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Kotve z ’ s § 1983 c la im s for dam a ge s a ga inst R y a n a c ting in his offic ia l c a

pa c ity be c a use R y an is e ntitle d to Ele ve nth Am e ndm e nt im

m unity . S e e Flint v . De nnison , 488 F.3d 816, 824-25 (9th C ir. 2007) (Ele ve nth Am e ndm e nt ba rs § 1983 da

m a ge s c la i m s a ga inst sta

t e offic ia ls in the i r offic ia l c a

pa c ity ). 1 2 - 1 6 1 6 7 2The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Kotve z ’ s c la im s a ga inst R y a n for injunc tive and de c la ratory re lie f be c a

use those c la im s we re m oot. Se e Alv are

z v . Hill , 667 F.3d 1061, 1063-65 (9th C ir. 2012) (injunc tive and de c la ratory re lie f be c am e m o ot upon inmate ’ s re le a se from c ustody be c a use he wa s no longe r subje c t

to the c onditions or polic ie s he c ha lle nge d). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Kotve z ’ s m otion to am e nd his c om

pla int a nd the m otion to e xte nd de a dline s in the sc he duling orde r be c a use Kotve z fa ile d to show good c a u s e . Se eFe d. R . C iv. P. 16(b)(4) (re quiring

“ good c a u se ” to m odify

a sc he duling orde r); J

ohnson v . Mammoth Re c re ations, Inc . , 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th C ir. 1992) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd e xpla ining tha

t the “ good c a

use ” sta nda rd of R ule 16 c ontrols a fte r a

sc he duling orde r is e sta

b lishe d, a nd tha t the inquiry turns prim arily on the pa rty ’ s dilige nc e ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Kotve z ’ s m otion for re c usa l. Se e Unite d State s v . J ohnson , 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th C ir. 2010) (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re vie wand sta

ting tha t judic ia l rulings alone rare l y c onstitute a va lid ba sis for a

re c usa l m o tion). Kotve z ’ s c onte ntions c onc e rning thede n ia l of his m otion for de fa ult a re unpe rsua sive and unsupporte d by the re c ord. AFFIRM E D. 1 2 - 1 6 1 6 7 3