Jason Barnard v. U.S. Government , 635 F. App'x 387 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             MAR 03 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JASON BARNARD,                                   No. 14-55825
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 5:14-cv-00833-GW-JC
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    U.S. GOVERNMENT,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted February 24, 2016**
    Before:        LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    Jason Barnard appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
    his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an Eighth Amendment claim. We have
    jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal for
    failure to state a claim. Barrett v. Belleque, 
    544 F.3d 1060
    , 1061 (9th Cir. 2008).
    *
    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).
    We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Barnard’s action as frivolous because
    Barnard’s claims lacked any arguable basis in law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams,
    
    490 U.S. 319
    , 325 (1989) (a “frivolous” claim lacks an arguable basis either in law
    or in fact; the “term ‘frivolous’ . . . embraces not only the inarguable legal
    conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation”); see also Sparling v. Hoffman
    Constr. Co., 
    864 F.2d 635
    , 638 (9th Cir. 1988) (court may sua sponte dismiss for
    failure to state a claim without notice or an opportunity to respond where plaintiff
    cannot possibly win relief). Moreover, Barnard failed to show that the United
    States has waived its sovereign immunity from suit. See United States v. Mitchell,
    
    463 U.S. 206
    , 212 (1983) (“It is axiomatic that the United States may not be sued
    without its consent and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for
    jurisdiction.”); Jachetta v. United States, 
    653 F.3d 898
    , 904 (9th Cir. 2011) (§ 1983
    does not waive sovereign immunity).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     14-55825
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-55825

Citation Numbers: 635 F. App'x 387

Judges: Leavy, Fernandez, Rawlinson

Filed Date: 3/3/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024