The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMANDO VALLES, a married man; No. 11-15794
GREGORY VEGA, a single man;
JAVIER TERAN, husband; SANDRA D.C. No. 4:08-cv-00009-FRZ-JCG
TERAN, wife; TDI INTERNATIONAL
INCORPORATED, an Arizona
corporation; T.F. ROBERTSON MEMORANDUM *
COMPANIES INCORPORATED, an
Arizona corporation; JOHN HARRIS,
husband; PATRICIA HARRIS, wife;
MARVIN GRENDAHL, husband;
DEBORAH GRENDAHL, wife; REUBEN
GRINSTEIN, husband; MAXINE
GRINSTEIN, wife; RAMON
ESCOBOZA, husband; FELICIA
ESCOBOZA, wife; STUART R. ENGS,
Trustee of the Stuart R. and Jane N. Engs
Family Trust; JANE N. ENGS, Trustee of
the Stuart R. and Jane N. Engs Family
Trust; BASSEEM CHALLANGOE,
husband; REEM CHALLANGOE, wife;
HADEEL ARENY, Trustee of the Hadeel
Areny trust; JORGE ALVAREZ, a single
man; MARK ARELLANO, husband;
LORENA ARELLANO, wife; ISMAT
AWDISH, husband AKA Luke Awdish;
HALLA AWDISH, wife,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
v.
COUNTY OF PIMA, a political
subdivision of the State of Arizona,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frank R. Zapata, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 5, 2012 **
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Valles et al. (“Lot Owners”) appeal from the district court’s grant of
summary judgment for the County of Pima (“the County”) on their claims under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
The Lot Owners raised four claims: promissory estoppel, substantive due
process, Fifth Amendment taking, and negligence. The district court correctly
granted summary judgment to the County on each of these claims. The Lot
Owners cannot establish promissory estoppel because the County made no promise
to them which they could have reasonably relied upon. Chewning v. Palmer, 650
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
P.2d 438, 440 (Ariz. 1982). The County took no action which could support a
substantive due process claim. See Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th
Cir. 2008) (“‘failure-to-protect’ and ‘failure-to-enforce’ allegations do not suffice”
as substantive due process claims). Similarly, the County took no regulatory
action which could support a takings claim. See Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City
of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 130 (1978) (evaluating when a particular government
action constitutes a taking). Finally, the Lot Owners cannot prevail on their
negligence claims, since the County and County officials are protected by
Arizona’s qualified immunity statute. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.02. The County
has established that its employees were not grossly negligent. See Walls v. Ariz.
Dep’t of Public Safety, 826 P.2d 1217, 1221 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
AFFIRMED.
3