Facts
- Jane Frost sued Vanna Regner for breach of contract and fraud after buying a property with undisclosed plumbing issues [lines="40-49"].
- Subsequent trials ended with a jury verdict in favor of Regner and a dismissal of Frost's claims against other involved defendants [lines="56-63"].
- Frost claimed her trial counsel failed to present key evidence, including a plumber’s letter that discussed significant plumbing problems [lines="75-83"].
- Five years after the judgment, Frost moved to set it aside, claiming the judgment was procured through fraud and seeking statutory relief [lines="28-34, 72-74"].
- The trial court denied the motion, stating the judgment was not void and that Frost did not demonstrate extrinsic fraud [lines="30-31, 102-103"].
Issues
- Whether the trial court erred in denying Frost's motion to set aside the judgment based on claims of fraud [lines="106-107"].
- Whether the court's order denying Frost’s relief was adequate for appellate review [lines="114-115"].
Holdings
- The court affirmed that Frost's motion to set aside the judgment lacked merit, as her allegations did not constitute extrinsic fraud [lines="225"].
- The appellate court found the trial court's detailed analysis provided sufficient reasoning for its order, affirming its adequacy for review [lines="118-119"].
OPINION
*1 Before: CANBY, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Timothy Huntley Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment *2 dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims connected to Williams’s arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action because Williams’s claims against the State of Arizona are barred by sovereign immunity, and Williams failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Tempe Marketplace or its security guard were state actors or that defendant Moriarty lacked probable cause to arrest him. See Pasadena Republican Club v. W. Just. Ctr. , 985 F.3d 1161, 1167 (9th Cir. 2021) (setting forth tests used to evaluate whether a private actor has engaged in state action for purposes of § 1983); Yousefian v. City of Glendale , 779 F.3d 1010, 1014 (9th Cir. 2015) (explaining that the “absence of probable cause is a necessary element of [a] § 1983 false arrest” claim); Pittman v. Oregon, Emp. Dep’t , 509 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that states enjoy sovereign immunity from § 1983 actions).
We reject as unsupported by the record Williams’s contentions that the district court was biased against him.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 23-2123
[*] 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).