Wylmina Hettinga v. Gavin Newsom ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WYLMINA ELIZABETH HETTINGA, No. 21-55818
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-06092-PA-DFM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity
as the Governor of California; ALEX
PADILLA, Secretary of State of California,
in his official capacity as the Secretary of the
State of California; STATE OF
CALIFORNIA; DOES, 1 to 4,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Wylmina Elizabeth Hettinga appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment
*
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).
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hettinga’s claims against the State of
California and defendants Newsom and Padilla in their official capacities on the
basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Ass’n des Eleveurs de Canards et
d’Oies du Quebec v. Harris, 729 F.3d 937, 943 (9th Cir. 2013) (discussing
Eleventh Amendment immunity).
The district court properly dismissed Hettinga’s claims against defendant
Padilla in his individual capacity because Hettinga failed to allege facts sufficient
to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (a
plaintiff must allege facts that “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged”); Angle v. Miller, 673 F.3d
1122, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining the state’s important regulatory interests
in ballot initiatives and election regulations).
We reject as meritless Hettinga’s contentions that the district court was
biased against her.
AFFIRMED.
2 21-55818