NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZACK CORYELLBATTLE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,
and GAYLA CORYELLBATTLE,

Plaintiff,

v. CITY OF MARICOPA; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 21

- 15362
D.C. No. 2:19

- cv - 01386

- DLR

- JZB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 16, 2022 * *
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Zack Coryellbattle appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 24 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 15362

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law violations stemming from his

arrest. We have jurisdiction under 2 8 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gordon v. County of Orange , 888 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2018) (summary judgment); Resnick v. Hayes , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A)

. We affirm. The district court properly gra nted summary judgment on Coryellbattle’s
Fourth Amendment excessive force claim because Coryellbattle failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants used excessive force in arresting him. See Graham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386, 39 7

- 98 (1989) (setting forth the objective reasonableness standard for excessive force determinations) ; Mattos v. Agarano , 661 F.3d 433, 443 (9th Cir. 2011) ( “[E] stablishing a lack of probable
cause to make an arrest does not establish an excessive force cla im, and vice

versa
. ” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Coryellbattle’s state law claims for assault and battery and damage to reputation because Coryellbattle failed to comply with the requirements of Ariz ona Rev ised Stat ute s § 12

- 821.01(A) for service of a notice of claim. See Simon v. Maricopa Medical
Ctr. , 234 P.3d 623 629 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010) (requirements for service of the notice of claim); Falcon ex rel. Sandovol v. Maricopa Cou nty , 144 P.2d 1254, 1256 (Ariz. 2006) (strict compliance with notice of claim provisions is required).3 21

- 15362

The district court properly dismissed Coryellbattle’s Fourth Amendment claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution because
pro bable cause existed to arrest Coryellbattle under Ariz ona Rev ised Statutes § 13

- 2509. See Awabdy v. City of Adelanto , 368 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th Cir. 2004) (malicious prosecution claim requires lack of probable cause); Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Ag ency , 261 F.3d 912, 924 (9th Cir. 2001) ( warrantless misdemeanor arrest “must be supported by probable cause to believe that the
arrestee has committed a crime” ). Likewise, the existence of probable cause defeats Coryellbattle’s First Amendment claim. Se e Nieves v. Bartlett , 139 S. Ct. 1715, 1727

- 28 (2019 ) ( probable cause is an absolute defense to a First Amendment
retaliation claim )

. T he district court properly dismissed Coryellbattle’s failure

- to

- train claim
under Monell v. Dep artment of Soc ial Serv ices , 436 U.S. 658 (1978) , because Coryellbattle failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim

. See Blankenhorn v. City of Orange , 485 F.3d 463, 484 (9th Cir. 2007) (elements of a
failure

- to

- train claim).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).4 21

- 15362

All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.