# Glaros v. California Department of Transportation

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 28, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11333083

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 28, 2026
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11333083

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to § 1983 actions and that “California’s two-year limitations period for personal injury actions, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1,” therefore applied

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2026
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NICHOLAS GLAROS, No. 24-7328
D.C. No.
Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:23-cv-08017-TJH-KES
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; CALIFORNIA
HOUSING FINANCE
AGENCY; ANDREW P. NIERENBERG,
Deputy District Director Dist 7; ANGUS
CHAN, Right of Way Agent; DOUG
HOOVER, Chief Excess Land Branch Right
of Way; CAROLYN DABNEY, Program
Manager; SON NGUYEN; GRETCHEN
McCROSKEY, Real Estate
Agent; DUSTIN LUCE, Real Estate
Agent; NICK KUFASIMES, Hosuing
Finance Chief; TED BALLMER, Lawyer
Legal; KIRSTEN BOWMAN; MARK A.
BROWN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Submitted May 26, 2026**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Nicholas Glaros appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his rights to acquire property and

to due process in connection with a failed transaction to purchase property from the

California Department of Transportation (“CalTrans”). We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Benavidez v. County of San Diego, 993

F.3d 1134, 1141 (9th Cir. 2021) (decision regarding qualified immunity); Sato v.

Orange County Dep’t of Educ., 861 F.3d 923, 927-28 (9th Cir. 2017) (dismissal

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and decision regarding Eleventh

Amendment immunity); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004)

(dismissal based on statute of limitations). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Glaros’s claims against CalTrans, the

California Housing Finance Agency (“CalHFA”), and the state employees sued in

their official capacities as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Jensen v.

Brown, 131 F.4th 677, 696 (9th Cir. 2025) (explaining that “[t]he Eleventh

Amendment bars suits against the State or its agencies for all types of relief, absent

unequivocal consent by the state,” and that “this protection extends to state

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 24-7328
instrumentalities and agencies, as well as state officials sued in their official

capacity” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed Glaros’s claims against attorneys

Bowman and Brown because these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

See Gibson v. City of Portland, 165 F.4th 1265, 1284 (9th Cir. 2026) (“A state

actor is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate clearly

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

have known.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed Glaros’s remaining claims as barred by

the statute of limitations. See Holt v. County of Orange, 91 F.4th 1013, 1018 (9th

Cir. 2024) (explaining that the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal

injury actions applies to § 1983 actions and that “California’s two-year limitations

period for personal injury actions, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1,” therefore

applied).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend

because “it is clear that granting leave to amend would have been futile.” Lathus v.

City of Huntington Beach, 56 F.4th 1238, 1243 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted);

Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125, 1131, 1139 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard of review;

explaining that denial of leave to amend is proper where no amendment would cure

the complaint’s deficiencies).

3 24-7328
The motion (Docket Entry No. 15) for judicial notice filed by CalHFA,

Ballmer, Kufasimes, and Brown is granted.

AFFIRMED.

4 24-7328

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11333083. Public record. Not legal advice.