Case Name: Brett Lee WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph A. LANE, Clerk, Court of Appeal Second District, official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-01
Citations: 692 F. App'x 385
Docket Number: Nos. 15-55980, 16-55104
Parties: Brett Lee WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph A. LANE, Clerk, Court of Appeal Second District, official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 385–386

Head Matter:
Brett Lee WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph A. LANE, Clerk, Court of Appeal Second District, official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 15-55980, 16-55104
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2017
Filed June 1, 2017
Brett Lee Williams, Pro Se
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In these consolidated appeals, Brett Lee Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Williams's action because defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) ("[A] suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official's office.... As such, it is no different from a suit against the State itself.").
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams's motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) because Williams failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that any party perpetrated "fraud on the court." Pizzuto v. Ramirez, 783 F.3d 1171, 1175, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth standard of review and requiring more specific evidence of fraud than plaintiffs "series of allegations and implications"). We reject as unsupported by the record Williams's contentions that pages were intentionally omitted from his filings or that his objections to the Report and Recommendation were not considered.
We reject as without merit Williams's contentions regarding judicial notice.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.