Appendix A — Rosa v. California (No. 07-1312)

19

BERNARD JOSEPH ROSA, JR., Plaintiff -

Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, a

Government Entity; CALIFORNIA BOARD OF

ACCOUNTANCY; CAROL SIGMANN, an individual

and in her capacity as agent and employee of the

CBA; GREGORY P. NEWINGTON, an individual

and in his capacity as agent and employee of the

CBA; LAWRENCE KNAPP, an individual and in his

capacity as agent and employee of the CBA;

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., ** Attorney General of

California; JOEL PRIME, an individual and in his

capacity as agent and employee of the California

Attorney General as a deputy attorney general;

RONALD DEIDRICH, an individual and in his

capacity as agent and employee of the California

Attorney General as a deputy attorney; MICHAEL R.

GRANEN, an individual and in his capacity as agent

and employee of the California Attorney General as a

deputy attorney; STEPHEN J. SMITH,

Administrative Law Judge, Defendants - Appellees.

** Edmund G. Brown Jr. is substituted for his

predecessor, Bill Lockyer, as Attorney General of

California, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

No. 05-16783

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

20

NINTH CIRCUIT

2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 29157

October 17, 2007, Argued and Submitted, San

Francisco, California

December 12, 2007, Filed

Bernard Joseph Rosa, Jr. appeals the dismissal of his

claims against defendants, the State of California, the

California Board of Accountancy (CBA), three agents of

the CBA (Carol Sigmann, Gregory P. Newington, and

Lawrence Knapp), the California Attorney General

(AG), three deputy AGs (Joel Prime, Ronald Deidrich,

and Michael Granen), and Administrative Law Judge

(ALJ) Stephen Smith. The federal] district court

dismissed Rosa's claims for failure to state a claim

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

HN1"Dismissal without leave to amend is improper

unless it is clear, upon de novo review, that the

complaint could not be saved by any amendment."

Vasquez v. Los Angeles County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1258

(9th Cir. 2007). We review the district court's dismissal

de novo and affirm the district court.

The district court dismissed Rosa's claims against the

State of California and the CBA on the ground that the

claims [*3] were barred by sovereign immunity.

21

HN2The Eleventh Amendment gives California

immunity from suits brought by its citizens in federal

court unless California waives that immunity. See

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54,

116 S. Ct. 1114, 1384 L. Ed. 2d 252 (1996). This

immunity extends to state agencies. In re Harleston,

331 F.3d 699, 701 (9th Cir. 2003). The record contains

no evidence that California or the CBA waived

immunity. Accordingly, we conclude the district court

properly dismissed Rosa's claims against the State of

California and the CBA.

The district court dismissed Rosa's claims against then

California AG Bill Lockyer and deputy AGs Joel Prime,

Ronald Deidrich, and Michael Granen on the ground

that the claims were barred by the applicable statute

of limitations. HN3Parties have one year to commence

claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1986, and

California's statute of limitations for personal injury

actions (one year at the time of the alleged violations)

governs claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

and § 1985. 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (2003); Canatella v. Van

De Kamp, 486 F.3d 1128, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2007);

Taylor v. Regents of University of California, 993 F.2d

710, 711-12 (9th Cir. 1993).

Rosa alleged [*4] the AG and his agents acted

wrongfully as late as 1994. Rosa did not file this action

against the AG and his agents until 2004, well beyond

22

the one-year time limit set forth by California's

personal injury statute of limitations and by 42 U.S.C.

§ 1986. Thus, we conclude the district court properly

dismissed Rosa's claims against the California AG and

his agents. See id.

The district court additionally found Rosa's claims

against the AG, the AG's agents, the CBA's agents, and

the AL.J Stephen Smith were barred by prosecutorial

and judicial immunity. HN4Prosecutors performing in

their official functions are entitled to absolute

immunity, and officials, such as agency officials, who

act as judges or prosecutors in a court-like setting are

considered "quasi-judicial" and are entitled to

immunity. See Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478,

511-12, 515, 98 S. Ct. 2894, 57 L. Ed. 2d 895 (1978);

Milstein v. Cooley, 257 F.3d 1004, 1007-08 (9th Cir.

2001); Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir.

1999).

Here, the district court found the CBA's agents, the

AG, the AG's agents, and the ALJ were acting in a

judicial, prosecutorial, or quasi-judicial manner and

accordingly were entitled to absolute immunity. We

conclude that the district [*5] court properly found the

defendants were entitled to immunity and properly

dismissed the claims for damages against them.

The district court dismissed Rosa's equitable claim for

23

relief on the ground that it was barred by the Younger

abstention doctrine. We conclude the district court

properly applied the Younger abstention doctrine to

Rosa's equitable claim because state proceedings were

ongoing, implicated an important state interest, and

provided an adequate opportunity to litigate federal

claims. See Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden

State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 482, 102 S. Ct. 2515, 73

L. Ed. 2d 116 (1982); Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d

965, 973 (9th Cir. 2004).

Finally, the district court dismissed Rosa's state law

claims pursuant to HN528 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which

allows a district court to decline to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when

all of the federal claims have been dismissed. As

discussed above, the district court properly dismissed

all of Rosa's federal claims. Accordingly, we conclude

the district court properly dismissed Rosa's state law

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

For [*6] the reasons discussed above, we AFFIRM the

district court's order dismissing Rosa's claims.

AFFIRMED.