# Opinion

> District Court, C.D. California · June 8, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11383160

## Case

- **Full name:** Arno Kuigoua v. Loretta Melby, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** June 8, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **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/11383160

## Opinion text

1
2
3

4

5

6

7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
WESTERN DIVISION
11
ARNO KUIGOUA, ) Case No. 2:26-cv-06117-PA-JDE
)
12 )
13 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v. )
14 )
15
LORETTA MELBY, et al., )
)

)
16 Defendants. )
)
17
18 I.
19 INTRODUCTION
20 On June 5, 2026, Arno Kuigoua (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a
21 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, asserting three claims under
22 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Loretta Melby, Executive Officer of the California
23 Board of Registered Nursing (“BRN”), and Elaine Yamaguchi, Executive
24 Officer, Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatrist Technicians (“BVNPT”),
25 each named solely in an official capacity presumably as officers of the State of
26 California (“Defendants”). Dkt. 1 (“Complaint”).
27 The Court recently dismissed three other complaints filed by Plaintiff
28 against state officials, including a prior action against defendant Loretta Melby,
1 and/or private actors involved in 2019 State Personnel Board (“SPB”)
2 proceedings and related proceedings for failure to state a claim and/or for
3 seeking relief against immune defendants. See Kuigoua v. Melby, et al., 2:26-
4 cv-04362-PA-JDE (“Melby I”) ; Kuigoua v. Park, et al., 2:26-cv-04365-PA-
5 JDE; Kuigoua v. Gavin Newsom, et al., 2:26-cv-04370-PA-JDE (collectively,
6 “Prior Federal Actions”).
7 As in the Prior Federal Actions, the Court takes judicial notice of the
8 following California Court of Appeal rulings in cases filed by Plaintiff (“Prior
9 State Appellate Cases”). In Kuigoua v. Park, 2025 WL 3139621 (Cal. Ct. App.
10 Nov. 10, 2025), in an appeal by Plaintiff of a dismissal of malpractice claims he
11 brought against his former attorney and his union relating to the 2019 SPB
12 proceedings, the appellate court dismissed the appeal as frivolous because
13 Plaintiff’s arguments were “not coherent” and because he repeatedly cited “to
14 legal authority that does not mention the proposition stated, stands for an
15 opposite proposition, or does not exist at all,” with the court providing “a small
16 sample of the deceptive, incorrect, or irrelevant legal citations in [Plaintiff’s]
17 briefs,” including several cases that “do not exist.” Id. at * 2-4 (citations
18 omitted). Further, roughly four months ago, in an unrelated case, a different
19 California appellate court found Plaintiff “has cited three apparently
20 nonexistent or miscited cases in his opening brief.” Kuigoua v. Sacks, 2026 WL
21 673409, at *1, n.1 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2026). In addition, in another case,
22 another state appellate court found Plaintiff “told two divergent stories: one to
23 the agency, but a different one in court.” Kuigoua v. Dep’t of Veteran Affairs,
24 101 Cal. App. 5th 499, 501 (2024).
25 In this action, Plaintiff seeks what he characterizes as prospective
26 declaratory and injunctive relief, stating the “case arises from two independent
27 but related constitutional violations,” that is, (1) the use of a 2023 BRN license
28 revocation proceeding to create “categorical barriers” to Plaintiff’s “nursing
1 licensure”; and (2) the 2023 BRN proceeding itself, which relied on findings
2 from the 2019 SPB proceeding that Plaintiff contends was constitutionally
3 infirm. Complaint, ¶¶ 1, 3. He alleges that the 2023 BRN revocation used the
4 doctrine of collateral estoppel to accept findings from the 2019 SBN proceeding,
5 at which Plaintiff was unrepresented and lacked sufficient time to prepare, all of
6 which were “constitutional[ly] inadequa[te].” Id., ¶¶ 5-6. He contends his union
7 initially provided counsel for the 2019 SPB proceeding, but such counsel failed
8 to adequately prepare and “[a]banon[ed]” him before the hearing, he was then
9 unable to obtain new counsel, and he did not have sufficient time to adequately
10 prepare for the SBP hearing. Id. at pp. 10-16. Plaintiff thus contends that the
11 SBP findings against him, which he does not fully specify, were constitutionally
12 infirm. Plaintiff then contends that a 2023 BRN proceeding that gave collateral
13 estoppel effect to those 2019 SPB findings resulted in the revocation of his
14 nursing license. Id., ¶¶ 44-51. Next, Plaintiff contends that on June 5, 2025, he
15 applied to take a Vocational Nurse Licensure by Examination with BVNPT,
16 but was told by telephone that “he could not proceed because of the severity of
17 the findings associated with his RN revocation and the related concern
18 regarding patient safety. Id., ¶ 54-55. Plaintiff avers, without specifying dates or
19 manner of communication, that “BVNPT has communicated a present
20 administrative position that prevents Plaintiff from proceeding with the
21 licensing examination pathway.” Id. Plaintiff also generally alleges that he
22 “faces a present barrier to obtaining licensure” in California and other states
23 due to his disciplinary history maintained by California. Id., ¶¶ 57-58.
24 Plaintiff asserts two claims based on alleged Fourteenth Amendment
25 procedural due process violations, both challenging the 2023 BRN’s reliance on
26 collateral estoppel to rely on findings from the 2019 SPB proceeding at which
27 Plaintiff was unrepresented due to his counsel “abandon[ing] him.” Complaint,
28 ¶¶ 65-76. He seeks declarations that “Defendants may not constitutionally treat
1 the 2023 RN revocation and SPB-derived findings as conclusive categorical
2 barriers” to Plaintiff’s nursing licensure pathways; “the [2023] BRN proceeding
3 violated procedural due process by applying collateral estoppel” to the 2019
4 SPB findings; and, the use of the 2019 “SPB-derived findings as conclusive
5 predicates” creating “professional barriers violates procedural due process.” Id.,
6 ¶¶ 77-79. Plaintiff also seeks injunctions barring Defendants from relying on the
7 2023 BRN findings to categorically bar Plaintiff from nursing application
8 pathways “unless and until constitutionally adequate process exists” as to the
9 findings made at the 2023 BRN proceeding. Id., ¶¶ 81-82.
10 II.
11 STANDARD OF REVIEW
12 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Gunn v. Minton,
13 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013). “A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a
14 particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v.
15 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Rsrv., 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989).
16 The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving his case is
17 “properly in federal court.” See In re Ford Motor Co. / Citibank (S.D.), N.A.,
18 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001).
19 Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure directs, “[i]f the
20 court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
21 must dismiss the action.” Courts “have an independent obligation to determine
22 whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge
23 from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006); Scholastic
24 Ent., Inc. v. Fox Ent. Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003); see also
25 Rule 12(h)(3). A complaint seeking relief against a defendant that is immune
26 from suit under the Eleventh Amendment is properly subject to dismissal sua
27 sponte under Rule 12(h)(3). See, e.g., Alexander v. Brown, 2025 WL 2678426,
28 at *7 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2025) (dismissing sua sponte claim against the State
1 of California under Rule 12(h)(3) due to Eleventh Amendment immunity)
2 adopted by 2025 WL 2675793 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2025).
3 Courts construe the allegations of pro se complaints liberally. Erickson v.
4 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d
5 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (as amended). However, “a liberal interpretation of a
6 civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were
7 not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257
8 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). In addition, although leave to amend is
9 normally liberally granted, if it is “absolutely clear that no amendment can
10 cure the defect,” even pro se pleadings may be dismissed without leave to
11 amend. Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam);
12 see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
13 III.
14 DISCUSSION
15 “The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits
16 brought against an unconsenting state.” Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec.
17 Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Pennhurst State Sch. &
18 Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984)). California has not consented to
19 suit against it in federal court. See Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025-
20 26 (9th Cir. 1999) (“California has not waived its Eleventh Amendment
21 immunity with respect to claims brought under § 1983 in federal court”); BV
22 Eng’g v. Univ. of Cal., L.A., 858 F.2d 1394, 1396 (9th Cir. 1988). Further,
23 Congress has not abrogated State sovereign immunity for civil rights actions.
24 See Dittman, 191 F.3d at 1026; L.A. Branch NAACP v. L.A. Unified Sch.
25 Dist., 714 F.2d 946, 950 (9th Cir. 1983).
26 Furthermore, an “official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name,
27 to be treated as a suit against the entity.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159,
28 166 (1985). Such a suit “is not a suit against the official personally, for the real
1 party in interest is the entity.” Id. The Eleventh Amendment “bars action
2 against state officers sued in their official capacities for past alleged misconduct
3 involving a complainant’s federally protected rights, where the nature of the
4 relief sought is retroactive . . . .” Bair v. Krug, 853 F.2d 672, 675 (9th Cir.
5 1988); see also Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 1999) (The
6 Eleventh Amendment “prohibits actions for damages against an ‘official’s
7 office,’ that is, actions that are in reality suits against the state itself.”).
8 Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) provides an exception to Eleventh
9 Amendment immunity for prospective declaratory or injunctive relief against
10 state officers in their official capacity for alleged violations of federal law. See
11 Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp., 465 U.S. at 102-06; Coal. to Defend
12 Affirmative Action v. Brown, 674 F.3d 1128, 1133-34 (9th Cir. 2012). But,
13 attempts to have prior state court proceedings declared void, is retroactive in
14 nature, and therefore, the Eleventh Amendment bars such relief. See
15 Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp., 465 U.S. at 105-06; see also Green v. Mansour,
16 474 U.S. 64, 73 (1985) (concluding claim for declaratory relief based on past
17 violations of federal law barred by the Eleventh Amendment); see also Becker
18 v. Oregon, 170 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1067-68 (D. Or. 2001) (denying request for a
19 declaration that state official's past actions violated plaintiff's constitutional
20 rights because “[t]his type of relief is forbidden by the Eleventh Amendment”);
21 McCullom v. Alameda Cty. District Attorney’s Office, 2024 WL 4592356, at
22 *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2024) (dismissing § 1983 action, finding the Ex Parte
23 Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity did not apply to request
24 for prospective injunctive relief as the plaintiff did not allege he was facing any
25 current state proceedings); cf. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111
26 (1983) (holding “equitable remedy is unavailable absent a showing of
27 irreparable injury, a requirement that cannot be met where there is no showing
28 of any real or immediate threat that the plaintiff will be wronged again . . . .
1 The speculative nature of [plaintiff's] claim of future injury requires a finding
2 that this prerequisite has not been fulfilled.”); Hodgers–Durgin v. de la Vina,
3 199 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (“[A]bsent a threat of immediate
4 and irreparable harm, the federal courts should not enjoin a state to conduct its
5 business in a particular way.”).
6 Here, Defendants are state officials sued in their official capacity. Thus,
7 absent application of the exception to immunity provided by Ex Parte Young,
8 the action is subject to dismissal.
9 Despite Plaintiff’s conclusory assertions that he seeks only “prospective”
10 relief, in fact, Plaintiff states the case arises from “two independent but related
11 constitutional violations,” the 2023 BRN proceedings that relied on the 2019
12 SPB proceedings, and what Plaintiff avers is the current use of the 2023 BRN
13 proceedings to bar Plaintiff from nursing licensure. See Complaint, ¶ 3. With
14 respect to the first alleged “violation,” it is facially only retroactive and, as
15 such, does not fall within the exception to immunity provided by Ex Parte
16 Young. As to the other purported “constitutional” violation, that is, current
17 reliance on the 2023 BRN (and 2019 SBN) proceedings to bar Plaintiff from
18 future nursing relicensing, Plaintiff is, in essence, seeking to repackage years-
19 old alleged constitutional violations into “prospective” relief by vaguely
20 alleging ongoing harms. Less than a month ago, the Court rejected a nearly
21 identical attempt by Plaintiff to convert past alleged violations into a request
22 for “prospective” relief, noting the nature of the claims was almost entirely
23 retrospective. See Melby I, Dkt. 11 at 5; Dkt. 12. The allegations in the instant
24 Complaint fare no better. The “Factual Allegations” of the Complaint,
25 excluding legal arguments, are contained at Paragraphs 18-59. Of those 42
26 paragraphs, 35 (¶¶ 18-53) relate to the 2019 SBN and 2023 BRN proceedings;
27 only 6 (¶¶ 54-59), or 14%, recount events after those proceedings, and those are
28 largely limited to a telephone call in June 2025 with an unnamed person and
1 otherwise vague and conclusory assertions about Defendants’ “present . . .
2 position.” Further, like the allegations in Melby I, Plaintiff claims of current
3 “harm” are speculative. As to BVNPT, the only “harm” he alleges is that in
4 2025, an unspecified person told him that “he could not proceed” with his
5 application because of the severity of the 2023 BRN findings. But Plaintiff does
6 not allege he tried to take the licensing exam and was precluded. Nor does
7 Plaintiff allege any other specific attempts he has made to lift the revocation of
8 his RN through the BRN. His request for prospective relief is entirely
9 speculative and does not raise a justiciable case or controversy. See United
10 States v. Yepez, 108 F.4th 1093, 1099 (9th Cir.) (“Article III of the
11 Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to ‘actual, ongoing cases or
12 controversies.’”) (citation omitted), cert denied, 145 S. Ct. 459 (2024). As
13 Plaintiff challenges only past alleged violations and does not seek viable
14 prospective relief as to any actual case or controversy, Ex Parte Young does
15 not apply. See, e.g., Green, 474 U.S. at 74; Becker, 170 F. Supp. 2d 1061 at
16 1067-68; McCullom, 2024 WL 4592356, at *3; cf. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 111
17 (1983); Hodgers–Durgin, 199 F.3d at 1042; (“[A]bsent a threat of immediate
18 and irreparable harm, the federal courts should not enjoin a state to conduct its
19 business in a particular way.”).
20 As noted, a pro se litigant is typically given leave to amend unless it is
21 absolutely clear that pleading deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment.
22 Lucas, 66 F.3d at 248. But if, after careful consideration, it is absolutely clear
23 that a complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the Court may dismiss
24 without leave to amend. See, e.g., Chaset v. Fleer/Skybox Int’l, LP, 300 F.3d
25 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that “there is no need to prolong the
26 litigation by permitting further amendment” where the “basic flaw” in the
27 pleading cannot be cured by amendment); Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. &
28 Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A district court may deny leave
1 amend when amendment would be futile.”). The Court notes here as part of
2 consideration of leave to amend that Plaintiff, including this case, has now
3 || filed five actions in this Court within a span of roughly six weeks (the Prior
4 Federal Actions, this action, and Kuigoua v. Ambrose, et al., 2:26-cv-06114-
5 ||PA-JDE)), including Melby I, which was substantively very similar to this
6 ||action, and each of those actions have now been dismissed for various pleading
7 defects. The Court also notes here and considers the findings in the Prior State
8 || Appellate Cases, set forth above, that Plaintiff repeatedly made frivolous
9 ||arguments, cited nonexistent cases, and made deceptive citations.
10 After careful consideration, it is absolutely clear that the basic flaw
11 |/cannot be cured by amendment. Further leave to amend is not warranted.
12 IV.
13 CONCLUSION AND ORDER
14 For the foregoing reasons, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
15 || over the claims asserted in the Complaint. As such, the Court “must dismiss
16 action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
17 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this action is
18 || DISMISSED without prejudice and Judgment shall be entered accordingly.

4 || Dated: June 8, 2026 tll, Se
PERCY ANIDERSON
21 United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11383160. Public record. Not legal advice.