From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kenner v. Holder

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feb 2, 2015
592 F. App'x 583 (9th Cir. 2015)

Opinion

No. 12-57343

02-02-2015

BRIAN KENNER; KATHLEEN KENNER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General; et al., Defendants - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01011-MMA-WVG MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

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

Brian and Kathleen Kenner appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their action alleging that defendants violated their constitutional rights by relying on 26 U.S.C. §§ 7432, 7433, the Federal Torts Claims Act, and the doctrine of judicial immunity in prior litigation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), Mills v. United States, 742 F.3d 400, 404 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Kenners' action for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction because defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity and the Kenners failed to demonstrate waiver. See id. at 405 ("Suits against the government are barred for lack of subject matter jurisdiction unless the government expressly and unequivocally waives its sovereign immunity."); see also Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985) ("[T]he bar of sovereign immunity cannot be avoided by naming officers and employees of the United States as defendants.").

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court may deny leave to amend where the amendment would be futile).

Because we affirm dismissal on the basis of sovereign immunity, we do not address the parties' arguments concerning other bases for dismissal.

The Kenners' request for judicial notice, filed on April 7, 2013, is granted.

Defendants' motion to dismiss, filed on March 4, 2014, is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Kenner v. Holder

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feb 2, 2015
592 F. App'x 583 (9th Cir. 2015)
Case details for

Kenner v. Holder

Case Details

Full title:BRIAN KENNER; KATHLEEN KENNER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. ERIC H. HOLDER…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Feb 2, 2015

Citations

592 F. App'x 583 (9th Cir. 2015)

Citing Cases

Rios v. Cnty. of Sacramento

Claims that SHRA "directed" the other defendants and acted in a "conspiracy" with them do not meet that…