Court Opinion

ID: 9396161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 18:01:32.193537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:14.407029
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 19 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JULIUS M. ENGEL,                                No. 21-16835

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00624-DB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Client
Security Fund Commission,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                 Deborah L. Barnes, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

                            Submitted May 16, 2023***

Before:      BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Julius M. Engel appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action alleging various federal and state law claims in connection with

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
            The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
      ***
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
proceedings before the State Bar of California’s Client Security Fund Commission.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Seismic Reservoir 2020, Inc. v. Paulsson, 785

F.3d 330, 333 (9th Cir. 2015) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and

12(b)(6)); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record.

Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

      Dismissal of Engel’s action was proper because his claims are barred by the

Eleventh Amendment. See Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court, 67 F.3d 708,

715 (9th Cir. 1995) (the State Bar of California is an arm of the state and is entitled

to Eleventh Amendment immunity); see also Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.

Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to

states and their agencies or departments “regardless of the nature of the relief

sought”); Doe v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 891 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 2018)

(the Ex parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment bar only applies where

a party seeks prospective injunctive relief against an individual state officer in his

or her official capacity).

      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

                                           2                                    21-16835
All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

                                  3   21-16835