From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barnard v. U.S. Gov't

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 3, 2016
635 F. App'x 389 (9th Cir. 2016)

Summary

holding that a court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim, without providing notice or an opportunity to respond, where the plaintiff cannot possibly win relief

Summary of this case from Hawkins v. Wesley

Opinion

No. 14-55773

03-03-2016

JASON BARNARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. GOVERNMENT, Defendant - Appellee.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 5:14-cv-00814-GW-JC MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Jason Barnard appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim. Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Barnard's action as frivolous because Barnard's claims lacked any arguable basis in law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (a "frivolous" claim lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact; the "term 'frivolous' . . . embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation"); see also Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988) (court may sua sponte dismiss for failure to state a claim without notice or an opportunity to respond where plaintiff cannot possibly win relief). Moreover, Barnard failed to show that the United States has waived its sovereign immunity from suit. See United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983) ("It is axiomatic that the United States may not be sued without its consent and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction."); Jachetta v. United States, 653 F.3d 898, 904 (9th Cir. 2011) (§ 1983 does not waive sovereign immunity).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Barnard v. U.S. Gov't

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 3, 2016
635 F. App'x 389 (9th Cir. 2016)

holding that a court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim, without providing notice or an opportunity to respond, where the plaintiff cannot possibly win relief

Summary of this case from Hawkins v. Wesley

finding complaint properly dismissed sua sponte because "claims lacked any arguable basis in law or fact"

Summary of this case from Hassman v. Rabbinical Assembly of Am.

determining that district court properly dismissed complaint sua sponte because the "claims lacked any arguable basis in law or fact"

Summary of this case from Sommers v. Okamoto

determining that district court properly dismissed complaint sua sponte because the "claims lacked any arguable basis in law or fact"

Summary of this case from Gillman v. United States

affirming sua sponte dismissal of complaint where the "claims lacked any arguable basis in law or fact"

Summary of this case from Costales v. City of Maui

affirming sua sponte dismissal of complaint where the "claims lacked any arguable basis in law or fact"

Summary of this case from Morelli v. Hyman
Case details for

Barnard v. U.S. Gov't

Case Details

Full title:JASON BARNARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. GOVERNMENT, Defendant …

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 3, 2016

Citations

635 F. App'x 389 (9th Cir. 2016)

Citing Cases

Hawkins v. Wesley

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Barnard, 635 F. App'x at 389. A court may sua sponte dismiss a…

Sweeney v. Contra Costa Cnty. Superior Court

A court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to state a claim if the plaintiff "cannot possibly win…