* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 3 2001 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

LISA FERGUSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Oklahoma Secretary of State,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 99-6320 (D.C. No. 98-CV-1114) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , BALDOCK , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff Lisa Ferguson brought this action againsther former employer, the State of Oklahoma Secretary of State, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117, an d the Oklahoma Human Rights Act, specifically claiming that the State fa iled to reasonably accommodate her disability and eventually terminated her employ ment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State on b oth claims, and Ms. Ferguson appeals. Subsequent to the district court’s action and the p arties’ briefing on appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states for money damages under the ADA, effectively overru ling a decision of this court to the contrary. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett , 121 S. Ct. 955 (U.S. 2001) (overruling Cisneros v. Wilson , 226 F.3d 1113, 1124 (10th Cir. 2000)). Therefore, both this court and the distric t court lack subject matter jurisdiction over Ms. Ferguson’s ADA claim, and it must be dismissed. See Maier v. U.S. EPA , 114 F.3d 1032, 1036 (10th Cir. 1997) (federal cou rts have independent duty to examine their jurisdiction ). The parties and the district court have indicated t hat the Oklahoma Human Rights Act provides a state law cause of action virtually identical to that provided by the ADA, presumably under Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § § 1302, 1901. The district court apparently asserted supplemental jurisdiction over this claim pursuant to-3-

28 U.S.C. § 1367. Supplemental jurisdiction, howev er, can no longer be sustained because of the lack of original federal j urisdiction over the ADA claim. See Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund , 81 F.3d 1182, 1188 (2d Cir. 1996) (“[S]ince a court must have original jurisdic tion in order to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a dismissal [for lack of subject matter jurisdiction] precludes a district court from exercising suppleme ntal jurisdiction over related state claims.”). In a letter to this court, Ms. Ferguson has acknowledged that Garrett requires that her case be dismissed from federal co urt, but she requests that we allow the district court to transfer the case to st ate court so she may pursue her state law remedy. She apparently would face statut e-of-limitations problems if she has to refile her claims in state court. Regre ttably, we know of no law permitting us to transfer a case from federal courtto state court in this situation. The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The judgment of the district court is VACATED, and the matter is REMAND ED to the district court with instructions to dismiss the action, without pr ejudice, for lack of jurisdiction.

Entered for the Court

Stephanie K. Seymour Circuit Judge