925 F2d 1470 Kent v. State G

925 F.2d 1470

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Jane Pendergast KENT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE of California; State Board of Control; Claim No. G
239506, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 90-15985, 90-16131.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 4, 1991.*
Decided Feb. 7, 1991.

Before TANG, SCHROEDER and CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judges.

In this consolidated appeal,1 Jane Pendergast Kent appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action against the State of California and its agency the State Board of Control for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the eleventh amendment. Kent's complaint appears to allege that her constitutional rights were violated in a state court proceeding. On appeal, Kent contends that the district court erred in finding that the State of California and its agency, the State Board of Control, are immune from suit in federal court. We review de novo and affirm. See Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 3217 (1990).

3

The district court did not err in dismissing the complaint. Under the eleventh amendment, the State of California and its agencies are immune from suits brought in federal court regardless of the type of relief sought. See Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); Bair v. Krug, 853 F.2d 672, 674-75 (9th Cir.1988); see also Rutledge v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 660 F.2d 1345 (9th Cir.1981) (state immunity extends to state agencies). Moreover, a federal district court has no jurisdiction "over challenges to state-court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state court's action was unconstitutional." District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983).

4

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

1

Kent filed two notices of appeal. The first appeal, No. 90-15985, was filed after the district court's initial order dismissing her action, and the second, No. 90-16131, was filed after the district court denied her motion to vacate the judgment. We consolidate these appeals sua sponte pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 3(b) and direct the clerk to assign case No. 90-15985 to this panel

925 F. 2d 1470 - Kent v. State G

925 F2d 1470 Kent v. State G

Advertisement