LAW.coLAW.co

CODY v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA TRINITY COUNTY (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-29No. No. 20-16233

Summary

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Codys' § 1983 action on Eleventh Amendment grounds and upheld the denial of leave to amend as not an abuse of discretion.

Leon and Darlene Cody filed a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging actions taken in state court proceedings. The district court dismissed their complaint, and the Codys appealed without legal representation. The appellate court reviewed the dismissal and found no error in the lower court's decision.

The court determined that the Codys' lawsuit was properly dismissed because it was barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. State courts are considered arms of the state and therefore enjoy sovereign immunity from federal civil rights suits. The court also ruled that the district judge did not err in refusing to allow the Codys to revise their complaint, because any amendments would have failed on the same legal grounds.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Whether state courts are entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity
  • Whether dismissal without leave to amend was proper based on futility of amendment
  • Whether federal civil rights suits can proceed against state courts as defendants

Procedural posture

The Codys appealed pro se from a district court judgment dismissing their federal civil rights complaint under Federal Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Leon Cody and Darlene Cody appeal pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Codys’ action as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (state courts are “arms of the state” entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); see also Monell v. Dept of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (official capacity suits are “another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying further leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.