Case Name: Jose M. GONZALEZ and Jeffrey Dean, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Stephen MAYBERG; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-07
Citations: 398 F. App'x 318
Docket Number: No. 09-56326
Parties: Jose M. GONZALEZ and Jeffrey Dean, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Stephen MAYBERG; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 398
Pages: 318–319

Head Matter:
Jose M. GONZALEZ and Jeffrey Dean, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Stephen MAYBERG; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-56326.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 22, 2010.
Filed Oct. 7, 2010.
Jose M. Gonzalez, McAllen, TX, pro se.
Jeffrey Dean, Newhall, CA, pro se.
Randall Raymond Murphy, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, 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.
The district court properly dismissed the appellants' claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") because the defendants are immune under the Eleventh Amendment. See Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 758, 119 S.Ct. 2240, 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999) (state immune under the Eleventh Amendment from action brought under the FLSA). The district court also properly dismissed the appellants' claims under the Fourteenth Amendment because the defendants in their official capacities enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity and in their individual capacities were entitled to qualified immunity. See Holley v. California Dep't of Corrections, 599 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2010) (suits against state officials in their official capacities barred by the Eleventh Amendment); Mueller v. Auker, 576 F.3d 979, 990 (9th Cir.2009) (recognizing that qualified immunity is appropriate where plaintiff has not alleged any constitutional violation).
The district court properly dismissed the appellants' claim for an order prohibiting the defendants from intimidating and harassing them because both appellants advised the court that they no longer reside at ASH. See Wilson v. Nevada, 666 F.2d 378, 381-83 & n. 5 (9th Cir.1982).
Appellants' 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.