Grant Kim v. Superior Court of California

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GRANT S. KIM, No. 21-55603

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:21-cv-00644-JGB-SP v.

MEMORANDUM* SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Executive Office,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California

Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 15, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Grant S. Kim appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action against the Superior Court of California seeking to overturn an unfavorable judgment. 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. dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kim’s action because defendant is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Simmons v. Sacramento County Super. Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (state courts are “arms of the state” entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The Eleventh Amendment bars suits which seek either damages or injunctive relief against a state, an arm of the state, its instrumentalities, or its agencies.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 21-55603