Case Name: Akan BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OFFICE OF RISK INSURANCE MANAGEMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-06
Citations: 471 F. App'x 594
Docket Number: No. 11-15595
Parties: Akan BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OFFICE OF RISK INSURANCE MANAGEMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 594–594

Head Matter:
Akan BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OFFICE OF RISK INSURANCE MANAGEMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-15595.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed March 6, 2012.
Akan Boyd, Oakland, CA, pro se.
Wilfred T. Fong, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Akan Boyd appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Boyd's action because California state agencies are immune from suit in federal court, and Boyd failed to amend to state a claim against any individual defendant despite an opportunity to do so. See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (§ 1983 does not override the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity from being sued in federal court); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585-86 (9th Cir.1978) (California Tort Claims Act does not waive the states' or state agencies' Eleventh Amendment immunity from being sued in federal court).
Boyd's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.