setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper where amendment would be futile
How later courts described this case
- setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper where amendment would be futile
- setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or 60
- affirming dismissal of § 1983 claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief because “state court judges cannot be sued in federal court in their judicial capacity under the Eleventh Amendment,” including for prospective injunctive relief
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 27 2025
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN LAURENCE BERMAN, No. 24-787
D.C. No. 4:23-cv-04644-YGR
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
Honorable Justice TRACIE BROWN,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2025**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
John Laurence Berman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of state court proceedings. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.
*
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).
2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Berman’s action because his claims are
barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Munoz v. Superior Ct. of Los
Angeles County, 91 F.4th 977, 981 (9th Cir. 2024) (affirming dismissal of § 1983
claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief because “state court judges cannot
be sued in federal court in their judicial capacity under the Eleventh Amendment,”
including for prospective injunctive relief); Lund v. Cowan, 5 F.4th 964, 969 (9th
Cir. 2021) (“The Eleventh Amendment does not permit retrospective declaratory
relief.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Berman’s motion to
reopen because Berman failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist.
No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.
1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59 or 60).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Berman’s action
without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth
standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper
where amendment would be futile).
We reject as without merit Berman’s contentions that the district court
2 24-787
denied him due process.
AFFIRMED.
3 24-787