Jason Okon, husband; v. City of Phoenix, a municipality incorporated under the laws of Arizona;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASON OKON, husband; et al.,
Plaintiffs,
and
BILL STOLLER, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF PHOENIX, a municipality
incorporated under the laws of Arizona; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-16027
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00347-NVW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2010**
FILED
AUG 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16027 2
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Bill Stoller appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants promote customs,
usages, and practices that discourage the lawful enforcement of federal
immigration laws. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1994 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We
affirm.
The district court properly concluded that defendants are immune under
Arizona law. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 12-820.01 & 12-801.02 (2010)
(providing immunity for public entities and public employees acting within the
scope of their employment); see also AlliedSignal, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 182 F.3d
692, 695 (9th Cir. 1999) (a public entity is immune for actions involving the
determination of a “fundamental governmental policy”). Moreover, Stoller failed
to state an equal protection claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949
(2009) (“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted).
Stoller’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --