Opinion ID: 766188
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: claims against the committee

Text: 12 Plaintiff asserted claims against the Committee under both S 1983 and the Privacy Act. Neither claim is viable.
13 Plaintiff's S 1983 claim against the Committee for allegedly violating the due process clause is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. In the absence of a waiver by the state or a valid congressional override, [u]nder the eleventh amendment, agencies of the state are immune from private damage actions or suits for injunctive relief brought in federal court. Mitchell v. Los Angeles Community College Dist., 861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1989). The State of California has not waived itsEleventh Amendment immunity with respect to claims brought under S 1983 in federal court, see Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 241 (1985) (holding that the California Constitution does not waive immunity from federal court jurisdiction), and the Supreme Court has held that S 1983 was not intended to abrogate a State's Eleventh Amendment immunity, Kentucky v. Graham , 473 U.S. 159, 169 n.17 (1985). 14 Indeed, Plaintiff does not contest that the Committee is a governmental agency of the State of California entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Plaintiff's S 1983 claim against the Committee.
15 Section 7(a)(1) of the Privacy Act provides that [i]t shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number. 5 U.S.C.A. S 552a (note). Although the protection afforded by the Privacy Act is broad, its civil remedy provision is far less expansive. This court has held that the private right of civil action created by the Privacy Act, see 5 U.S.C.S 552a(g)(1) (providing that a private individual may bring a civil action against the agency), is specifically limited to actions against agencies of the United States Government. The civil remedy provisions of the statute do not apply against private individuals, state agencies, private entities, or state and local officials, Unt v. Aerospace Corp., 765 F.2d 1440, 1447 (9th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also St. Michael's Convalescent Hosp. v. California, 643 F.2d 1369, 1373 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that the Privacy Act provides no private right of action against state agencies or bodies). Accordingly, the Privacy Act provides Plaintiff with no private cause of action against the Committee. 16 Plaintiff counters that, even if the Privacy Act itself provides no remedy against the Committee, S 1983 may serve as a vehicle to redress violations of that statute. See Legal Servs. v. Arnett, 114 F.3d 135, 138 (9th Cir. 1997) (It is well established that S 1983 provides a private right of action for violations of federal statutes in some instances.). Even if we assume, without deciding, that Plaintiff's argument is correct, the Committee is entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, as we already have held. Thus, Plaintiff cannot maintain a Privacy Act claim against the Committee, either directly under S 552a(g)(1) or derivatively through S 1983. 17 In summary, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Committee as to all claims.