Did the Arizona District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court err in their analysis of the takings claim?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the Arizona District Court and the Ninth Cir: cuit Court Err when they Cited Penn Central v. New York City and failed to address Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, and Reahard v. Lee County on what constitutes reasonable, and what constitutes an investment backed expectation as per Reahard v. Lee County and its subsequent effect on the plaintiff. . Penn Central v. New York City, 77-444 438 U.S. 104 1978 Lucas v. South Carolina Costal Council, 112 S. Ct. 2886 2900 (1992) Reahard v. Lee County, 968 F2d 1131 1136 (11th cir 1992) Cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1693 (1995) 2. Did the Arizona District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court err when they refused to address the Arizona Property Rights Protection Act, diminished value, agreements that “Run With The Land” as it relates to the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and to plaintiffs 1983 claim. Az Prop 207, 1/21/2006 (Az sec 12-1131 thru Az. Sec 12-1138) 8. Did the Arizona District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court Err when they refused to address the Paradise Valley v. Gulf Leisure on vested rights as it relates to the 5th and 14th Amendments to the US. Constitution and to plaintiffs 1983 claim. Az. 557 P2d 532 (Az Ct. App. 1976) be us foe Bee tee ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued 4. Did the Arizona District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court abuse their discretion in dismissing all federal claims and the plaintiffs right to pursue his claims in the court of his choosing as per Knick v. Township of Scott. Knick v. Township of Scott, 862 F 3d 310 S.Ct. 17647 (2019) iii LIST OF PROCEEDINGS _ Robert E & Judith D Bennett v. The City of Kingman, CV 19-08001-PCT-MTL Arizona District Court Judgement Aug 27, 2021 Robert E &Judith D Bennett v. The City of Kingman, No 21-16105 D.C. 3:19-cv-08001 MIL United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judgement Entered January 4th 2023 Robert E Judith D Bennett v. The City of Kingman, No 21-16105 D.C. 3:19-cv-08001 MTL United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Motion En Banc Hearing (Denied) . iv