“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted
How later courts described this case
- “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted
- holding that recusal is not required when judge has “minimal alumni contacts” with a defendant university
- qualified immunity “protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
- “[I]n the absence of consent a suit in which the State or one of its agencies or departments is named as the defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES W. PLAYER, No. 15-35933
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00238-EJL-REB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
James W. Player appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the First and
Fourteenth Amendments arising from defendants’ restriction on his access to the
University of Idaho campus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
*
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).
review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a
claim. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Player’s claims against the University
of Idaho and the other defendants in their official capacities because the claims are
barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.
Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (“[I]n the absence of consent a suit in which
the State or one of its agencies or departments is named as the defendant is
proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment.”).
To the extent that Player sued any defendant in his individual capacity, the
claims are barred by qualified immunity. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223,
231 (2009) (“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials
from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly
established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would
have known.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Ashcroft v.
al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 743 (2011) (qualified immunity “protects all but the plainly
incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
2 15-35933
Because the district court properly dismissed the action for failure to state a
claim, Player had no right to a jury trial.
We reject as without merit Player’s contention that Magistrate Judge Bush
and District Judge Lodge should have recused themselves from this case solely
because they graduated from the University of Idaho. See United States ex rel.
Hochman v. Nackman, 145 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that recusal is
not required when judge has “minimal alumni contacts” with a defendant
university).
AFFIRMED.
3 15-35933