674 Fed.Appx. 652 (9th Cir. 2017), 15-15012, Krug v. Maricopa County Superior Court
|Citation:||674 Fed.Appx. 652|
|Party Name:||KARYL JEAN KRUG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, a Subdivision of the State of Arizona; et al., Defendants-Appellees|
|Attorney:||KARYL JEAN KRUG, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Scottsdale, AZ. For MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, a Subdivision of the State of Arizona, KAREN WESTOVER, a married woman, DOUGLAS REYES, a married man, LORI ASH, a married woman, DIANE ALESSI, Defendants - Appellees: Ann Ruth Hobart, Esquire, Assi...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||January 03, 2017|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Submitted December 14, 2016. [**]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01320-JWS. John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding.
KARYL JEAN KRUG, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Scottsdale, AZ.
For MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, a Subdivision of the State of Arizona, KAREN WESTOVER, a married woman, DOUGLAS REYES, a married man, LORI ASH, a married woman, DIANE ALESSI, Defendants - Appellees: Ann Ruth Hobart, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix, AZ.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Karyl Jean Krug appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment retaliation claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed Krug's claims against Maricopa County Superior Court because in this case it is an " arm of the state," not subject to § 1983 liability. Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (holding that " 'arms of the State' for Eleventh Amendment purposes" are not liable under § 1983); Arizona v. Super. Ct., 4 Ariz.App. 373, 420 P.2d 945, 951 (Ariz. App. 1966) (" There is only one superior court in the State of Arizona." (citing Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 13)), vacated on other
However, the district court abused its discretion in denying Krug's request to amend her claims to add Maricopa County as a defendant because it is not...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP