N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M ARK STUAR T; VIR GINIA G. STUAR T, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla nts,
v. C ITY OF SC OTTSDALE, a M unic ipa l C orporation a

nd a politic a l subdivision of the State of Ariz ona ; W J LANE, AKA Jim Lane , Husba

nd; JOANN LANE, wife ; GUY PHILLIPS; KATHY LITTLEFIELD; SOLANGE W HITEHEAD; SUZANNE KLAPP, W ife ; LINDA M ILHAVEN, W ife ; VIR GINIA KOR TE, W ife ; JIM THOM PSON, Husba

nd; KRISTEN THOM PSON, wife ; B R

UC E W ASHB UR

N, husba n d; WASHB UR

N, W ife , na m e d a s Ja ne Doe W a shburn; ER

IC ANDER SON, husba

nd; JENNIFER ANDER SON, wife ; C AR OLINE JAGGER , W ife ,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. Nos. 22-15498 22-16300 D.C . No. 2:20-c v-00755-JAT
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt 

# F IL ED AUG 2 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.for the Distric t of Ariz o na Jam e s A. Te ilborg, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 1, 2023 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a n d FER NANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s . In No. 22-15498, M ark a

nd Virginia

Stua rt (c o lle c tive ly , the Stua

rts) a ppe a l pro se from

the judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt in fa vor of the C ity

of Sc ottsda le (Sc ottsda le ) and the Individua l De fe nda nts 1 in the ir a c tion a lle ging fe de ra l c ivil rights a nd sta te la w viola tions a rising from Sc ottsda le ’ s a pplic ation for a writ of ga rnishm e nt. In No. 22-16300, the Stua rts a ppe a l from

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of the ir Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 60 m otion for re l ie f from the judgm e nt. W e a ffirm

the judgm e nt in No. 22-15498 a nd dismi ss the a

ppe a l in No. 22-16300. R e vie wing de novo, 2 we a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt on theStua rts’ 42 U.S.C . § 1983 c la i m s . Sum m ary judgm e nt wa s a

ppropria te a s to theStua

rts’

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). 1 W .J. La n e ; Guy Phillips; Ka

thy Little fie ld; Sola

n ge White he a d; Suz anne Kla pp; Linda M i lha ve n; Virgina

Korte ; Jim

Thom pson; B ruc e W a shburn; Eric Ande rson. The Stua rts did not a

ppe a l the dism i ssa l of the i r c la im s a ga inst De fe nda nts Joa nn La ne , Kriste n Thom

pson, a nd Je nnife r Ande rson, a

nd those individuals a

re not inc lude d in the te rm

“ Individua l De fe nda

nts.” 2 Sorre ls v . Mc

K e e , 290 F.3d 965, 969 (9th C ir. 2002).

2m

unic ipa l lia

bility c la im s 3 be c a

use e ve n a ssum ing (without de c iding) tha t a
c onstitutiona

l viola t ion oc c urre d, the re wa s no ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t tha t Sc ottsda le ha d no polic y of viola ting c onstitutiona

l rights. Se e Gille ttev . De lmore , 979 F.2d 1342, 1346–47 (9th C ir. 1992) (pe r c uriam ). The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly de te rm i ne d tha

t in thec i rc um sta

nc e s of this c a se , Sc ottsda le did not ra tify any
unc onstitutiona

l de c isions 4 and De fe nda

nt W a shburn wa s not a fina l polic y m ake r. 5 Like wise , the distric t c o urt c orre c tly grante d qua lifie d im m unity to the Individua l De fe nda nts. The re wa s no m at e ria l e vide nc e tha t a ny of the m

ha d viola te d the Stua rts’ c le arly

e sta blishe d c onstitutiona

l rights. Se e Lanev . Frank s , 573 U.S. 228, 243, 134 S. C t. 2369, 2381, 189 L. Ed. 2d 312 (2014); se e also W hite v . Pauly , 580 U.S. 73, 79, 137 S. C t. 548, 552, 196 L. Ed. 2d 463 (2017) (pe r
c uriam ); S

hinault v . Hawk

s , 782 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th C i r. 2015). W e a lso a ffirm

the judgm e nt a s to theStua rts’ Ariz ona

c l a im s. The re c ord
re fle c t e d no ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t tha t Sc o ttsda l e ha d not c om

m itte d

3 Se e Mone ll v . De

p’t of Soc . Se rv

s. of N .Y. , 436 U.S. 658, 690–91, 98 S. C t. 2018, 2035–36, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978); id. at 690 n.55, 98 S. C t. at 2035 n.55.

4 Se e Tre v i no v . Gate

s , 99 F.3d 911, 920–21 (9th C ir. 1996). 5 Se e C ity of St. Louis v. Praprotnik , 485 U.S. 112, 124–25, 108 S. C t. 915, 924–25, 99 L. Ed. 2d 107 (1988); c f. Ly t lev . C

arl , 382 F.3d 978, 982–85 (9th C ir. 2004) (e xplic it de le gat ion of a uthority). 3wrongful ga

rnishm e nt, 6 a

buse of proc e ss, 7 or inte ntiona l inflic tion of e m otiona l distre s s. 8 On the c ontra

ry , the e vide nc e showe d tha t Sc ottsda le ha d a c te d
a ppropria te ly in se e king to c olle c t on its undispute d, va lid judgm e nt. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion 9 in de ny ing a s untim e ly the Stua rts’ m otion for the distric t judge to re c use him se lf. Se e Pre ston v . Unite d State s , 923 F.2d 731, 732–33 (9th C ir. 1991); s e e also 28 U.S.C . §§ 144, 455. The
re c o rd supports the

c onc lusion tha

t the Stua rts’ two-m onth de la

y wa s
unre a s ona

ble , 1 0 and the Stua

rts ha ve not a rgue d othe rwise
. In No. 22-16300, we c o n strue the Stua rts’ brie fing a s a

se c ond m otion to
re m and this c a se for the distric t c ourt to c onside r the ir R ule 60(b) m otion. Se e C anadian Inge rsoll-Rand C o., Ltd. v . Pe te r

son Prods. of San Mate

o, Inc
. , 350 F.2d 18, 27 & n.16 (9th C ir. 1965); se e also Fe d . R . App. P. 12.1. So c o nstrue d , we

6 Se e Andre w

Brow n C o. v . Painte rs W

are house , Inc
. , 531 P. 2d 527, 529 (Ariz
. 1975), abrogate d on othe r grounds as rec ognize d by Sw ift Transp. C

o. of Ariz. LLC v . C arman e x re l. C nty . of Yav a

pai , 515 P.3d 685, 689–93 (Ariz . 2022); se e a lso Ariz . R e v . Stat. § 12-1572.

7 J ose ph v

. Mark

ov itz , 551 P.2d 571, 574–75 (Ariz . C t . App. 1976); se e also Ronde lli v . Pima C

nty
. , 586 P.2d 1295, 1301 (Ariz . C t. App. 1978). 8 C hristak is v . De itsc h , 478 P.3d 241, 245 (Ariz . C t. App. 2020); se e also Midas Muffler Shop v . Ellison , 650 P.2d 496, 498–500 (Ariz
. C t. App. 1982).

9 Unite d State

s v . J ohnson , 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th C i r. 2010); se e also Unite d State s v . Hink s on , 585 F.3d 1247, 1261–63 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba n c ). 1 0 Se e Unite d State

s v . Mik he l , 889 F.3d 1003, 1027 (9th C ir. 2018). 4de ny

it, a nd we dism i ss the a

ppe a l. Se e Visione e r ing C onstr. & De v . C o. v . U.S. Fid. &Guar. (In re

Visione e ring C

onstr.) , 661 F.2d 119, 124 & n.6 (9th C i r. 1981). Eve n a s sum ing tha t the M ay 24, 2022, Ariz ona

C om m issione r ruling
am ounte d to ne wly -disc ove re d e vide nc e , tha t e vide nc e would not c ha

nge the outc om e of a

ny of the Stua

rts’ c la im s. Se e Tre ndse ttah USA, Inc . v . Sw ishe r Int’l, Inc
. , 31 F.4th 1124, 1136 (9th C ir. 2022). W e do not c onside r argum e nts ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l or m atte rs not spe c ific a lly

and distinc tly

ra ise d a nd a rgue d in the ope n ing brie f. Se e Padge tt
v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985–86, 985 n.2 (9th C i r. 2009). AFFIRM E D as to No. 22-15498 and DISM I SSE D as to No. 22-16300.

5