Julius Engel v. State Bar of California ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIUS M. ENGEL, No. 21-16835
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00624-DB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Client
Security Fund Commission,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Deborah L. Barnes, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted May 16, 2023***
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Julius M. Engel appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging various federal and state law claims in connection with
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
proceedings before the State Bar of California’s Client Security Fund Commission.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Seismic Reservoir 2020, Inc. v. Paulsson, 785
F.3d 330, 333 (9th Cir. 2015) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6)); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record.
Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Engel’s action was proper because his claims are barred by the
Eleventh Amendment. See Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court, 67 F.3d 708,
715 (9th Cir. 1995) (the State Bar of California is an arm of the state and is entitled
to Eleventh Amendment immunity); see also Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.
Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to
states and their agencies or departments “regardless of the nature of the relief
sought”); Doe v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 891 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 2018)
(the Ex parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment bar only applies where
a party seeks prospective injunctive relief against an individual state officer in his
or her official capacity).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
2 21-16835
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 21-16835