Herships v. California 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HOWARD HERSHIPS, No. 25-3502 D.C. No. 3:20-cv-07208-JD Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT; SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY; COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA; SANTA CLARA OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, Defendants - Appellees, and Sheriff LAURIE SMITH, Sheriff of Santa Clara County; Judge DREW C.

TAKAICHI, Santa Clara County Superior Court; KYLE NEDDENRIEP, Santa Clara County Office of the Public Defender; COOLEY, LLP; PRISON LAW OFFICE; SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; KARIC LOPEZ, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

James Donato, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2026** Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Howard Herships appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment and dismissal order in his action under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (cross motions for summary judgment); Rhoades v. Avon Prods., Inc., 504 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for Santa Clara County Superior Court on Herships’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims because Herships failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the Superior Court discriminated against Herships because of his hearing impairment.

See Updike v. Multnomah County, 870 F.3d 939, 949-51 (9th Cir. 2017) (setting forth elements of discrimination claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act).

The district court properly dismissed Herships’s other ADA and § 1983

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 25-3502 claims against Santa Clara County Superior Court because they were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or Eleventh Amendment immunity, or Herships otherwise failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See T.B. ex rel.

Brenneise v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 806 F.3d 451, 473 (9th Cir. 2015) (explaining that to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADA, the plaintiff must show a causal link between protected activity and an adverse action); Munoz v. Superior Ct. of Los Angeles County, 91 F.4th 977, 980-81 (9th Cir. 2024) (holding that state courts are protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing proper application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and explaining that “[i]f a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that decision, Rooker-Feldman bars subject matter jurisdiction in federal district court”).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 25-3502