Monreal v. New York , 518 F. App'x 11 ( 2013 )

12-2829
Monreal v. New York
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED
AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS
COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT
FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX
OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A
PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 29th day of April, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
10 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 FRANCISCO JAVIER MONREAL, M.D.,
15
16 Plaintiff-Appellant,
17
18 v. 12-2829
19
20 STATE OF NEW YORK, ITS HEALTH
21 (OPMC) & EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS
22 AND ITS JUDICIAL SYSTEMS,
23
24 Defendants-Appellees.
25 _____________________________________
26
27
1 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: FRANCISCO JAVIER MONREAL, pro
2 se, Jamesville, NY.
3
4 FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: VICTOR GERARD PALADINO,
5 Assistant Solicitor General
6 (Barbara D. Underwood, Nancy A.
7 Spiegel, on the brief) for Eric
8 T. Schneiderman, Attorney
9 General of the State of New
10 York, Albany, NY.
11
12 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
13 Court for the Northern District of New York (Suddaby, J.).
14
15 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
16 AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.
17
18 Appellant Francisco Javier Monreal, M.D., pro se,
19 appeals from the district court’s July 2012 judgment
20 dismissing his civil rights complaint for lack of subject
21 matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
22 Procedure 12(b)(1). We review de novo a district court
23 decision dismissing a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).
24 See Jaghory v. New York State Dep’t of Educ., 131 F.3d 326,
25 329 (2d Cir. 1997). We assume the parties’ familiarity with
26 the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case,
27 and the issues on appeal.
28
29 “[A]bsent waiver or valid abrogation, federal courts
30 may not entertain a private person’s suit against a State.”
31 Virginia Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart, 131 S. Ct.
32 1632, 1638 (2011). “‘[T]he immunity recognized by the
33 Eleventh Amendment extends beyond the states themselves to
34 state agents and state instrumentalities that are,
35 effectively, arms of a state.’” Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568
36 F.3d 355, 366 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Woods v. Rondout
37 Valley Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 466 F.3d 232, 236 (2d
38 Cir. 2006)). Every state entity sued by Monreal is an arm
39 of the state that is entitled to sovereign immunity. See
40 Gollomp, 568 at 368 (finding that “the New York State
41 Unified Court System is unquestionably an arm of the State,
42 and is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity”)
43 (quotation marks and internal citation omitted); Dube v.
44 State Univ. of New York, 900 F.2d 587, 594-95 (2d Cir. 1990)
2
1 (finding that the New York State Department of Education is
2 entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity); New York
3 Ass’n of Homes and Servs. for the Aging, Inc. v. DeBuono,
4 444 F.3d 147, 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (finding that
5 officers of the Department of Health are entitled to
6 Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity). The district court
7 was therefore correct to dismiss Monreal’s suit.
8
9 We have considered all of Monreal’s remaining arguments
10 and find them to be without merit.
11
12 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
13 court is hereby AFFIRMED.
14
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3