RAFAEL SUAREZ V. DOUGLAS DUCEY, No. 21-15537 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 19 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAFAEL MOISES SUAREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-15537 D.C. No. 4:20-cv-00317-RCC v. MEMORANDUM* DOUGLAS DUCEY; STATE OF ARIZONA; UNKNOWN PARTY, named as John Doe #1 Etc.; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2022** Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Rafael Moises Suarez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law violations stemming from Suarez’s arrest and conviction in 1997. We have jurisdiction under * 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). 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm. Because Suarez failed to allege facts that could establish an exception under Ex Parte Young, the district court properly dismissed Suarez’s claims as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Seven Up Pete Venture v. Schweitzer, 523 F.3d 948, 952-53 (9th Cir. 2008) (describing Eleventh Amendment immunity and the Ex Parte Young exception); Snoeck v. Brussa, 153 F.3d 984, 986-87 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[A] generalized duty to enforce state law or general supervisory power over the persons responsible for enforcing the challenged provision will not subject an official to suit.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 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). AFFIRMED. 2 21-15537

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.