David William Peabody v. State of Arizona

972 F.2d 1341 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. David William PEABODY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF ARIZONA, Defendant-Appellee. No. 92-15027. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 20, 1992. * Decided Aug. 26, 1992. Before KOZINSKI and DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and VON DER HEYDT, ** Senior District Judge. MEMORANDUM *** Peabody brought a tort action in the Superior Court of Arizona, but the court granted summary judgment against him. He then sued the State of Arizona in federal district court, claiming that he had suffered a substantial deprivation of rights by being denied access to the courts. The district court dismissed the suit, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Peabody's action, which essentially would have required it to review the merits of the Arizona court's decision. Alternatively, the district court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred Peabody's suit. (C.R. 21, p. 2). We review de novo. See,…