Case Name: Orla Kenneth LUCAS, and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARIZONA SUPREME COURT FIDUCIARY CERTIFICATION PROGRAM, aka Fiduciary Licensing Program; Arizona Supreme Court, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-03
Citations: 457 F. App'x 689
Docket Number: No. 10-16602
Parties: Orla Kenneth LUCAS, and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ARIZONA SUPREME COURT FIDUCIARY CERTIFICATION PROGRAM, aka Fiduciary Licensing Program; Arizona Supreme Court, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: HUG, KLEINFELD, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 457
Pages: 689–690

Head Matter:
Orla Kenneth LUCAS, and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ARIZONA SUPREME COURT FIDUCIARY CERTIFICATION PROGRAM, aka Fiduciary Licensing Program; Arizona Supreme Court, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 10-16602.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2011.
Filed Nov. 3, 2011.
Daniel Massey, Massey & Finley, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Mary Jane Gregory, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
Before: HUG, KLEINFELD, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Orla Lucas appeals the district court's dismissal of his suit against the Arizona Supreme Court. We affirm the district court's dismissal because sovereign immunity principles behind the Eleventh Amendment bar this action in federal court. See Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir.1987) (holding that "a suit against the Superior Court [of California] is a suit against the State, barred by the eleventh amendment").
The Arizona Supreme Court, including its fiduciary certification program, is an "arm of the state" for Eleventh Amendment purposes. See NAACP v. State of California, 511 F.Supp. 1244, 1257-58 (E.D.Cal.1981). The Eleventh Amendment bars an action by a private citizen against a state in federal court unless (1) Congress has abrogated state sovereign immunity under a valid grant of constitutional authority; or (2) a state has waived it. Holley v. Cal. Dep't of Corrections, 599 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir.2010). Lucas does not point to any federal statute that abrogated the state's sovereign immunity, nor does he suggest that Arizona waived its immunity or consented to suit in federal court.
Under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 160, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), a plaintiff can seek in federal court a prospective injunction against a state official for violations of federal law. However, Lucas named the Arizona Supreme Court and its fiduciary certification program as Defendants; he did not name individual state officials. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 781-82, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.