Herships v. Yolo County Superior Court

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HOWARD HERSHIPS, No. 24-6811 D.C. No. 2:24-cv-00677-DAD-CKD Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* YOLO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2026** Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Howard Herships appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We

* 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). affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Herships’s action because his claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Munoz v. Superior Ct. of Los Angeles County, 91 F.4th 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2024) (explaining that California Superior Courts are protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-6811