Opinion
21-55603
06-29-2022
GRANT S. KIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Executive Office, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California No. 5:21-cv-00644-JGB-SP Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Grant S. Kim appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his action against the Superior Court of California seeking to overturn an unfavorable judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Kim's action because defendant is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Simmons v. Sacramento County Super. Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (state courts are "arms of the state" entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995) ("The Eleventh Amendment bars suits which seek either damages or injunctive relief against a state, an arm of the state, its instrumentalities, or its agencies." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).