William Ramsey, Jr. v. State of Hawaii ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM W. RAMSEY, Jr., No. 20-17453
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00215-JMS-KJM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STATE OF HAWAII,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Former Hawaii state prisoner William W. Ramsey, Jr. appeals from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims
arising out of his criminal trial, incarceration, and placement on a sex offender
registry. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of
sovereign immunity. Ariz. Students’ Ass’n v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 824 F.3d 858,
864 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ramsey’s action against the State of
Hawaii on the basis of sovereign immunity. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.
Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 (1984) (states must unequivocally express consent to
waive sovereign immunity).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramsey leave to
amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of
review and stating that leave to amend may be denied where amendment would be
futile); see also Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) (if “a judgment in
favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or
sentence . . . the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate
that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”).
We reject as meritless Ramsey’s contentions concerning prosecutorial
immunity.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-17453