MEMORANDUM **

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, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.

*697 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, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (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.