Daniel B. Belt v. State of Arizona

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL B. BELT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF ARIZONA; ARIZONA OFFICE
OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, a
government body of the State of Arizona;
GREG HANCHETT, in his official capacity
as the Director of the Arizona Office of
Administrative Hearings,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-17006
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00409-DJH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Daniel B. Belt appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in connection with an
* 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).
FILED
AUG 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-17006
Arizona administrative proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal based on res judicata. Stewart v.
U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Belt’s action as barred by res judicata
because Belt seeks to relitigate a final administrative agency decision in a
proceeding in which Belt had an adequate opportunity to litigate, and Belt did not
appeal the agency decision to state court. See Olson v. Morris, 188 F.3d 1083,
1086 (9th Cir. 1999) (under Arizona law, res judicata precludes a party from
seeking judicial review of a final agency decision that was not appealed to state
court, including where the party alleges constitutional errors by the agency, so long
as the decision meets the minimum criteria set forth in United States v. Utah
Construction & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 (1966)); see also Utah Constr. at 422
(application of res judicata is appropriate where the “administrative agency is
acting in a judicial capacity and resolved disputed issues of fact properly before it
which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in requiring the parties to meet
and confer prior to the filing of a motion to dismiss or in denying Belt’s motion for
a subpoena or order to preserve documents. See City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am.
Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that a “district court is
given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-17006
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).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --