N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SHANE B ADDING,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. DAVID C LOUSE, individua lly and in his offic ia l c a pa c ity a s She riff of Nava

jo C ounty , Ariz ona ; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s,
and C OUNTY OF NAVAJO; NAVAJO C OUNTY B OARD OF SUPER VISOR S, De fe nda n ts. No. 21-16821 D.C . No. 3:20-c v-08315-DW L -ESW
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 Dom inic La

nz a , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July 17, 2023 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED
JUL 19 2023 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.

* * 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).B e fore : HAW KINS, S.R . THOM AS, and M c KEOW N, C irc uit Judge s. Shane B a dding a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l with pre judic e of his a c tion a lle ging viola

t ions of fe de ra l a

nd sta te la w a ga inst Na

va jo C ounty She riff David C louse an d Na va jo C ounty

She riff De p uty

Ne wm an (c olle c tive ly ,

“ De fe nda nts” ). 1 W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. “ W e re vie w de
novo a n orde r gran ting a

m o t ion to dism

i ss for fa ilure to sta

te a c la im unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C i vil Proc e dure 12(b)(6).” Mudpie , Inc . v . Trav e le r

s C as. Ins. C o. of Am. , 15 F.4th 885, 889 (9th C ir. 2021). “ W e re vie w the de nia l of le av e to
am e nd for a

n a b use of disc re tion, but we re vie wthe futility

of am e ndm e nt de novo.” C ohe n v . C onAgra Brands, Inc

. , 16 F.4th 1283, 1287 (9th C i r. 2021). W e
a lso re vie w de novo que stions of fe de ra l and sta te la w. Asante

v . C al. De p’t of He alth C areSe rv s . , 886 F.3d 795, 799 (9th C ir. 2018). W e a ffirm . B e c a use the

1 B a dding a lso sought to na m e Nava j o C ounty

She riff De p uty

Pe nde rga st a s a de fe nda nt, but thedistric t c ourt prope rly found tha

t De puty Pe nde rga st ha d not be e n tim e ly

se rve d. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 4(m). M ore ove r, be c a use “ [a ] [d] istric t [c ] ourt m ay

prope rly on its own mo tion dism

iss a n a c tion a s to de fe nda

nts who have not m ove d to dismiss whe re suc h de fe n da n t s a re in a position sim

ila r to tha t of m oving de fe nda

nts or whe re c la im s a ga inst suc h de fe nda nts a re inte gra lly re late d,” Silv e rton v . De

p’t of Tre asury

of U.S. of Am. , 644 F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th C ir. 1981), the distric t c ourt did not err in dismi ssing the a c tion a s a ga inst Deputy Pe nde rga st. 2pa

rtie s are fam ilia

r with thefa c tua l a

nd proc e d ura l history

of the c a se , we ne e d not
re c o unt it he re . I The distric t c ourt did not err in dismissing B a dding’ s fe de ra l c la i m s unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a ga inst De fe nda nts. First, B a d ding ha s not pla usibly a lle ge d a ny viola tions of theFirst, Ninth, or Fourte e nth Am e n d m e nts a ga inst Dep uty

Ne wm an be c a use B a dding’ s a

m e nde d c om

pla int fa ils to a lle ge any

fa c ts be y ond “ m e re
c onc lusory

sta t e m e nts.” Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 6778 (2009). B a dding’ s Fifth Am e ndm e nt c la im is fore c lose d by Ve ga v . Te k oh , 142 S. C t. 2095, 2106–08 (2022). B a dding ha s a lso fa ile d to pla u sibly a l le ge a viola tion of theFourth Am e ndm e nt be c a

use his a m e nde d c om

pla int doe s not a lle ge tha

t the arre st la c ke d proba b le c a use or e x ige nt c irc um sta

nc e s, nor doe s it ide ntify

any c l e arly
e sta blishe d la w holding tha

t De fe nda nts’ a lle ge d a c tions c onstitute d e xc e ssive forc e . Se e LaLondev . C

ounty of Riv e rside , 204 F.3d 947, 954 (9th C ir. 2000). Ac c ordingly , De puty Ne w m an is e ntitle d to qua l ifie d im m unity
. Se e LSO, Ltd. v

. Stroh , 205 F.3d 1146, 1157 (9th C ir. 2000). Se c ond, B a dding’ s § 1983 c la im a ga inst She riff C louse fa ils be c a use B a dding ha s a lle ge d no fa c t s from whic h it c a

n be pla usibly infe rre d

tha t She riff C louse wa s involve d in or “ ra tifi[e d] ” any a c tions of thede putie s. C hristie v . Iopa , 3176 F.3d 1231, 1239 (9th C ir. 1999). Nor doe s re sponde at supe rior provide a ba sis for lia

bility unde r § 1983. Iqbal , 556 U.S. a t 676. She riff C louse is the re fore
a lso e ntitle d

to qua lifie d im

m unity
. Se e LSO , 205 F.3d a t 1157. Third, B a d d ing’ s § 1983 c la im unde r Mone ll v

. De

partme nt of Soc ial Se rv ic e s , 436 U.S. 658 (1978), a ga inst Na va jo C ounty fa i ls to pla

usibly a lle ge “ a de libe ra t e polic y , c ustom , or pra c tic e ” tha t c a use d the a lle ge d c onstitutiona l viola tions. AE e

x re l. He rnande

z v . C o unty of Tulare , 666 F.3d 631, 636 (9th C ir. 2012) (c ita

tion omitte d); se e Iqbal , 556 U.S. a t 677–78
. II The distric t c ourt did not err in dismissing B a dding’ s sta te -law a ssa

ult c la im be c a use B a dding fa ile d to pla

usibly a lle ge tha

t his de te ntion wa s unsupporte d by proba b le c a use . Se e Iqbal , 556 U.S. a t 677–78; Ariz . R e v. Stat. Ann. § 13-409 (2023). III The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly he ld tha t B a dding’ s sta

t e -law ne glige nc e c la im

is fore c lose d by Ry an v . N

apie r , 425 P.3d 230 (Ariz . 2018), be c a use the “ ne glige nt
use of inte ntiona lly

inflic t e d forc e is [not] a c ogniz a ble c la i m ” unde r Ariz o na la w. Id. at 236. IV
4The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

dism i ssing the se c ond
am e nde d c o m

pla int with pre

judic e , be c a

use B a d d ing “ fa i le d to a dd the re quisite pa rtic u la rity to [his] c la im s .” N

guy e n v . Endologix

, Inc
. , 962 F.3d 405, 420 (9th C ir. 2020) (c ita

tion omitte d); se e id. (holding tha t “ the distric t c o urt’ s disc re tion to de ny le ave to a

m e nd is pa

rtic ula rly broa d ” whe re the distric t c ourt ha s pre viously gran te d the pla intiff le ave to a m e nd the c om

pla int). AFFIRM E D.

5