Case Name: Alejandro ORDONEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeffrey JOHNSON, AUSA; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-16
Citations: 154 F. App'x 619
Docket Number: No. 04-56940
Parties: Alejandro ORDONEZ, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jeffrey JOHNSON, AUSA; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 154
Pages: 619–620

Head Matter:
Alejandro ORDONEZ, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jeffrey JOHNSON, AUSA; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-56940.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 8, 2005.
Decided: Nov. 16, 2005.
Alejandro Ordonez, Coleman, FL, pro se.
Alejandro N. Mayorkas, AUSA, Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Alejandro Ordonez appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his Bivens action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights by depriving him of his property subsequent to his arrest and conviction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a Bivens action, Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The district court did not err in dismissing the action as to the federal defendants because Ordonez sued them in their official capacities and they have sovereign immunity. See Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348, 355 (9th Cir.1987) ("a Bivens action can be maintained against a defendant in his or her individual capacity only, and not in his or her official capacity").
The district court also properly dismissed the claim against defendant Gougler, a state employee, without prejudice.
Ordonez's remaining contentions are without merit
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.