Court Opinion

ID: 9365585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-24 17:00:42.742142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:46.314465
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 24 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HECTOR GARCIA,                                  No.    21-16747

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01309-KJM-DB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH; STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                   Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Hector Garcia appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C.

§ 201 et seq. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
a dismissal on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. Quillin v. Oregon,

127 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 1997). We affirm.

       The district court properly dismissed Garcia’s action on the basis of

Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Walden v. Nevada, 945 F.3d 1088, 1093-94

(9th Cir. 2019) (“Congress’s enactment of the FLSA did not abrogate a State’s

sovereign immunity from suit in federal court” and therefore “federal courts lack

jurisdiction over FLSA cases brought against States in the absence of a waiver of

immunity.”); see also Krainski v. Nev. ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nev. Sys. of Higher

Educ., 616 F.3d 963, 967 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The Eleventh Amendment

jurisdictional bar applies regardless of the nature of the relief sought and extends to

state instrumentalities and agencies.”).

       The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Garcia leave to

amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide

Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of

review and stating that leave to amend may be denied where amendment would be

futile).

       AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    21-16747