N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DEVIN ANDRIC H,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C HARLES L. R

YAN, Dire c tor at Ariz ona De pa rtm e nt of C o rre c tions; JULIA ER W IN, Le ga l Ac c e ss M onitor a t Ariz ona De pa rtm e nt of C o rre c tions; B EVERLY ULIB ARR I, nam e d a s Ja

ne Doe Uliba

rri, Para le ga l at Ariz o n a

De pa rtm e nt of C orre c tions; C HR ISTINA PHILLIS, Dire c tor at Offic e o f Public De fe nse Se rvic e s; JANELLE A. M C EAC HER N, Attorne y lic e nse d to pra c tic e la

w in Ariz ona ; DAVID SHINN, Dire c tor, ADC Dire c tor, De fe nda

n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 20-17322 D.C . No. 4:17-c v-00047-R M
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 R ose m ary M árque z , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED
SEP 10 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Subm itte d Se pte m be r 9, 2021 **
B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, SILVER

M AN, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s De vin Andric h a

ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s orde r gran ting sum m ary judgm e nt in fa vor of de fe nda

nt M c Ea c he rn. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo, Arpin v . Santa C lara Valle y Transp. Age nc

y , 261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th C ir. 2001), a nd a ffirm
. Sum m a ry judgm e nt wa s prope r on the a c c e ss to thec ourts c la i m . Andric h fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t M c Ea c he rn c a

use d a n a c t ua l injury to a post-c o nvic tion
c la im tha t ha d a rgua ble fa c tua l a

nd le ga l m e rit. C

hristophe r v . Harbury , 536 U.S. 403, 414-16 (2002); Le w is v . C ase y , 518 U.S. 343, 351, 353 n.3 (1996). The

“ ‘ argua b le ’ nature of the unde rly ing c la im ” m ust be “ m ore tha

n hope .” C hristophe r , 536 U.S. a

t 416. Sum m a ry judgm e nt wa s a lso prope r on the sta te bre a c h of fiduc i ary

duty le ga l m a lpra c tic e c la im . Andric h fa ile d to c om e forward with suffic i e nt e vide nc e of both a c ogniz a ble injury and c a usation. Se e C

e c ala v . N e w man , 532 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1134 (D. Ariz . 2007) (de fining a c o gniz a ble injury a s “ the loss of a

right,
re m e dy , or inte re st, or the im p o sition of a

lia bility ” c a use d by an attorne y ’ s

* * The pa

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

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 2“ willful fiduc ia ry bre a c h.” ); Glaze v . Larse n , 83 P.3d 26, 29 (Ariz . 2004) (e n ba nc ) (“ [a ] ne c e ssa

ry pa rt of the le ga l m a lpra c tic e pla intiff’ s burde n of proof of proxim ate c a

use is to e s ta

blish tha t but for theattorne y ’ s ne g lige nc e , he would have be e n suc c e ssful in the

prose c ution or de fe n se of the origina l suit” ) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d); Hy att Re ge nc y Phoe nix Hote l C o . v . W inston & Strawn , 907 P.2d 506, 517 (Ariz . C t . App. 1995) (“ [t] o re c o ve r c o m pe nsatory dam a ge s in a le ga l m a lpra c tic e a c tion the pla intiff m ust prove tha

t but for theattorne y ’ s
ne glige nc e , the prose c ution or de fe nse of the origina l a c tion would ha ve be e n
suc c e ssful” ). W e de c line to c onside r the e m otiona l da m a ge s a rgum e nt ra ise d

for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se e J

e nk ins v . C nty . of Riv e rside , 398 F.3d 1093, 1095 n.4 (9th C ir. 2005) (c la im s not ra ise d in opposition to sum m ary judgm e nt a

re a b andone d); N ov ato Fire

Prot. Dist. v. Unite d State s , 181 F.3d 1135, 1141 n. 6 (9th C ir. 1999) (issue s not ra ise d

in sum m ary judgm e nt a

re wa ive d on a ppe a l ). W e sim ila

rly de c line to c onside r the punitivedam a ge s a rgum e nt m a de for the first tim e in the
re ply brie f. Se e Arpin , 261 F.3d a t 919 (issue s not ra ise d

in the ope ning brie f are
wa ive d). AFFIRM E D.

3