Lucas v. Arizona Supreme Court Fiduciary Certification Program , 457 F. App'x 689 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 03 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ORLA KENNETH LUCAS, and all other No. 10-16602
persons similarly situated,
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02599-NVW
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ARIZONA SUPREME COURT
FIDUCIARY CERTIFICATION
PROGRAM, AKA Fiduciary Licensing
Program; ARIZONA SUPREME COURT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 14, 2011**
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, KLEINFELD, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Plaintiff Orla Lucas appeals the district court’s dismissal of his suit against
the Arizona Supreme Court. We affirm the district court’s dismissal because
sovereign immunity principles behind the Eleventh Amendment bar this action in
federal court. See Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812
F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that “a suit against the Superior Court [of
California] is a suit against the State, barred by the eleventh amendment”).
The Arizona Supreme Court, including its fiduciary certification program, is
an “arm of the state” for Eleventh Amendment purposes. See NAACP v. State of
California, 511 F. Supp. 1244, 1257-58 (E.D. Cal. 1981). The Eleventh
Amendment bars an action by a private citizen against a state in federal court
unless (1) Congress has abrogated state sovereign immunity under a valid grant of
constitutional authority; or (2) a state has waived it. Holley v. Cal. Dep’t of
Corrections, 599 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2010). Lucas does not point to any
federal statute that abrogated the state’s sovereign immunity, nor does he suggest
that Arizona waived its immunity or consented to suit in federal court.
Under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 160 (1908), a plaintiff can seek in
federal court a prospective injunction against a state official for violations of
federal law. However, Lucas named the Arizona Supreme Court and its fiduciary
2
certification program as Defendants; he did not name individual state officials. See
Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 781-82 (1978).
AFFIRMED.
3