Cited by

¶ 1 n.1 (App. 1999) (noting appellant conceded that an appellee was not responsible for the actions challenged “and therefore apparently withdraws his appeal as to that defendant”); cf. Navajo Realty Co. v. Cnty.

(because inmate had no entitlement to commutation of sentence, court “[could not] imagine that an amendment would cure the legal defects of his complaint” alleging violation of his constitutional rights by governor’s failure to follow clemency board’s recommendation to do so).

In that respect, the proposed second amended complaint “did not reframe the issues,” and would not have cured the prior complaint’s “defects,”

P. 15(a)(2) (“Leave to amend must be freely given when justice requires.”); Bishop v. State Dep’t of Corr., –75 (App. 1992); ¶ 26 (App. 1999) (explaining the court should grant a non-moving party the opportunity to amend a complaint “if such an amendment cures its defects”).

P. 15(a)(2) (“Leave to amend must be freely given when justice requires.”); Bishop v. State Dep’t of Corr., -75 (App. 1992); ¶ 26 (App. 1999) (explaining the superior court should grant a non-moving party the opportunity to amend a complaint “if such an amendment cures its defects”).

¶¶ 26–27 (App. 1999); see also Walls v. Ariz. Dep’t of Pub.

See Carranza, 237 Ariz. at 515, ¶ 12 (affirming the denial of leave to amend where the movant did not inform the court or opposing counsel how he intended to amend the pleadings); ¶ 26 (App. 1999) (“[T]he non-moving party should be given an opportunity to amend the complaint if such an amendment cures its defects.” (emphasis added)).

¶ 6 (App. 1999) (“An inmate's interest in commutation .

Ct., ¶ 26 (App. 1999) (explaining the superior court should grant a non- moving party the opportunity to amend a complaint “if such an amendment cures its defects”).

5 SELDIN v. SELDIN DEV., ¶ 26 (App. 1999).

Ct., Bishop v. State Dep’t of Corr., –75 (App. 1992); ¶ 26 (App. 1999) (explaining the superior court should grant a non-moving party the opportunity to amend a complaint “if such an amendment cures its defects”); Ariz. R. Civ.

¶¶ 26-27 (App. 1999) (affirming dismissal with prejudice where the court "[could ]not imagine that an amendment could cure the legal defects of [plaintiff's] complaint").

¶ 26 (App. 1999) (citation omitted).

3 IBEABUCHI v. DUCEY Decision of the Court ¶8 Under Arizona law, before a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is granted, a “non-moving party should be given an opportunity to amend the complaint.” ¶ 26 (App. 1999) (citation omitted).

¶7 The effects of the federal and state equal protection guarantees “are essentially the same,” ¶ 13 (App. 2012) ( ¶ 15 (App. 1999)), each generally requiring the law treat all similarly situated persons alike, ¶ 32 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 19 (App. 1999)).

“Liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause may arise from the clause itself or state laws.”

“[T]he governor retains ultimate authority to grant or deny a recommended commutation.” (under present law, “an Arizona governor’s discretion to act on the Board’s recommendations remains unfettered, subjective, arbitrary, and a matter of grace”).

§ 13- 706(F)(2), imposing life sentence with possibility of release after 35 years); ¶ 17, (“[R]ecidivist statutes such as the one applying to Wigglesworth reflect the states’ interest in dealing in a harsher manner with those who by repeated criminal acts have shown that they are simply incapable of conforming to the norms of society as established by the criminal law

¶32 “The equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions generally require that all persons subject to state legislation shall be treated alike under similar circumstances.” ¶ 19, (internal quotation marks omitted).

Unless it implicates a suspect classification or a fundamental right, we will uphold legislation that is “‘rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.’” Navarro, 34 P.3d at 977, (same standard applies to state constitutional provision).

Moreover, before dismissing on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds, if requested, “the non-moving party should be given an opportunity to amend the complaint if such an amendment cures its defects.” ¶ 26

“Before the trial court grants a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the non-moving party should be given an opportunity to amend the complaint if such an amendment cures its defects.”

Wigglesworth v. *423 Mauldin