Christopher Granton v. Washington State Lottery

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 16 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER R. GRANTON, No. 16-35793
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05420-RJB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WASHINGTON STATE LOTTERY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Christopher R. Granton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging that the Washington State Lottery unconstitutionally
denied him restitution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo a dismissal of an action as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.
*
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).
Micomonaco v. Washington, 45 F.3d 316, 319 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Granton’s action against the
Washington State Lottery on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See
Krainski v. Nevada ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nevada System of Higher Educ., 616
F.3d 963, 967 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the
State or its agencies for all types of relief, absent unequivocal consent by the
state.” (citation omitted)); Nat’l Audubon Society, Inc. v. Davis, 307 F.3d 835, 848
(9th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that claims against a state or its officials seeking
damages or restitution are “of course prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Confederated Tribes & Bands of
Yakama Indian Nation v. Locke, 176 F.3d 467, 469-70 (9th Cir. 1999) (recognizing
the Washington State Lottery as a state agency). In light of our disposition, we do
not address the merits of Granton’s claims.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-35793