### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-30927 Summary Calendar

MILDRED JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. ROBIN GIARRUSSO, Orleans Parish Judge; LOUISIANA STATE, Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court f or the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:12-CV-494

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mildred Jones filed suit claiming due pro c e s s v i o l a t i o n s b y Louisiana State court judge Robin Giarrusso and by t h e S t a t e of Louisiana. The district court dismissed because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We AFFIRM. The federal complaint w as filed in February 2 012, three years a fter Jones brought suit i n Louisiana s tate court. Current defendant Robin Giarrusso was the state court judge. Judge G i a r r usso admitted the plaintiff’s attorney-son, U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D March 21, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5, the court has determ ined that this op inion s hould not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-30927 Document: 00512183159 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2013No. 12-30927

R i c k y N e l son Jones, pro hac vice in order to represent his mother. After t h e defendants in that case d emonstrated t hat Jones’s son was a necessary witness, Judge Giarrusso applied state Bar rules to hold that the son could no longer be the attorney in the case. Admission pro h a c v ice was r evoked. Jones took an interlocutory appeal. A Louisiana Court of Appeal upheld the revocation of the attorney’s admission and affirmed the denial of Jones’s motion f o r s u m m ary judgment. Jones v. Next Generation Homes, LLC, 76 So. 3d 1238 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2011). We are unaware of any further proceedings in the state trial court. Jones brought the current suit in t he U.S. D istrict Court for the Eastern District of Lo u i siana, alleging that removing her a ttorney was a due process violation. She sought to have her son reinstated as her attorney and the state court action s tayed p ending resolution of the f ederal court s uit, or alternatively, the removal to federal court of the state court suit she filed in 2009. This court reviews a district court’s dismissal f or lack of s u b j ect matter jurisdiction de novo . Ballew v . Cont’l Airlines, Inc. , 668 F .3d 7 77, 7 81 (5th Cir. 2012). The Eleventh Amendment bars citizens’ suits against a State in federal court. Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish Council , 279 F.3d 273, 280 ( 5th Cir. 2002). The S t a t e of Louisiana has not waived immunity. L A
. R E V
. S T A T
. A N N
. § 13:5106(A) (2010). Congress has not abrogated it. See Cozzo , 279 F.3d at 281. The exception that a llows suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief does not apply, as Jones seeks retroactive relief. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman , 465 U.S. 89, 105-06 (1984) (citing Ex Parte Young , 209 U.S. 123 (1908)). Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to hear t he suit against Louisiana because the State retains sovereign immunity. Id. T o t h e extent that Jones seeks a n injunction of s tate c ourt proceedings, that relief is barred b y the Anti-Injunction Act. 28 U.S.C. § 2283. As t o removal

2 Case: 12-30927 Document: 00512183159 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2013No. 12-30927

of her state court suit to federal court, Jones as plaintiff has no r ight to remove her own case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The suit against Judge Giarrusso in her official capacity is also barred as effectively a suit against the State. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of S tate Police , 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 12-30927 Document: 00512183159 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/21/2013