Glenn v. California Department of Education ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BEA E. GLENN, No. 17-15801
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05512-SK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION; CALIFORNIA STATE
TEACHERS’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Sallie Kim, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Bea E. Glenn appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
her action alleging discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act
*
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).
(“ADA”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) in
connection with the denial of disability benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal based on Eleventh
Amendment immunity. Eason v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 303 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th
Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Glenn’s action against the California
Department of Education and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System
because Glenn’s claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Mitchell v.
L.A. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1988) (setting forth factors to
determine whether a state governmental agency is an arm of the state subject to
Eleventh Amendment immunity); L.A. Branch NAACP v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist.,
714 F.2d 946, 950 (9th Cir. 1983) (California Department of Education is a state
agency subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity); see also Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of
Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 360, 374 (2001) (holding that Title I of the ADA
does not validly abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity); Kimel v. Fla.
Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 91 (2000) (holding that the ADEA does not validly
abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-15801