Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Dennis O'COnnOr v. State of Nevada
Dennis O'COnnOr v. State of Nev., 686 F.2d 749 (9th Cir. 1982)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1982-08-24
- Topic
- general
holding that “Nevada 20 has explicitly refused to waive its immunity to suit under the eleventh amendment” | recognizing that the State of Nevada has explicitly refused to waive its immunity 20 to suit under the Eleventh Amendment | holding that 8 "Nevada has explicitly refused to waive its immunity to suit under the eleventh amendment . . . | recognizing that, under the Eleventh Amendment, a state or its agencies cannot be sued in federal court without the state’s 20 consent and Nevada explicitly has refused to waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity | recognizing that under the 20 Eleventh Amendment, a state or its agencies cannot be sued in federal court without the state’s consent and Nevada explicitly has refused to waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity | recognizing that, under the 19 Eleventh Amendment, a state or its agencies cannot be sued in federal court without the state’s consent and Nevada explicitly has refused to waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity | recognizing that, under the 8 Eleventh Amendment, a state or its agencies cannot be sued in federal court without the 9 state’s consent and Nevada explicitly has refused to waive its Eleventh Amendment 10 immunity | holding that “Nevada has explicitly refused to waive its immunity to suit under the eleventh amendment. ... The Supreme Court has made it clear that section 1983 does not constitute an abrogation of the eleventh amendment immunity of the states” | stating that the Supreme Court of Nevada and a 19 Judicial District Court of Nevada are “agencies of the state” that have Eleventh Amendment immunity | stating that the Supreme Court of Nevada and a Judicial District Court of Nevada are “agencies of the state” that 16 have Eleventh Amendment immunity | holding that “Nevada has explicitly refused to waive its immunity to suit under the eleventh amendment . . . The Supreme 22 Court has made it clear that section 1983 does not constitute an abrogation of the eleventh amendment immunity of the states” | holding that “Nevada has explicitly refused to waive its immunity to suit under the eleventh amendment . . . The Supreme 21 Court has made it clear that section 1983 does not constitute an abrogation of the eleventh amendment immunity of the states” | holding that “Nevada has explicitly refused to waive its immunity to suit under the eleventh amendment . . . The Supreme 23 Court has made it clear that section 1983 does not constitute an abrogation of the eleventh amendment immunity of the states” | holding that “Nevada has explicitly refused to waive its immunity to suit under 10 the eleventh amendment . . . The Supreme Court has made it clear that section 1983 does not 11 constitute an abrogation of the eleventh amendment immunity of the states” | holding that “Nevada has explicitly refused to waive its immunity to suit under the 5 eleventh amendment . . . The Supreme Court has made it clear that section 1983 does not 6 constitute an abrogation of the eleventh amendment immunity of the states” | holding that “Nevada has 19 explicitly refused to waive its immunity to suit under the eleventh amendment . . . The Supreme Court has made it clear that section 1983 does not constitute an abrogation of the eleventh 20 amendment immunity of the states” | holding that “Nevada has explicitly refused to waive its immunity to suit under 18 the eleventh amendment . . . The Supreme Court has made it clear that section 1983 does not 19 constitute an abrogation of the eleventh amendment immunity of the states” | holding that “Nevada has explicitly refused to waive its immunity to suit 26 under the eleventh amendment . . . The Supreme Court has made it clear that section 1983 does not constitute an abrogation of the eleventh amendment immunity of the 27 states” | holding that “Nevada has explicitly refused to waive its immunity to suit under the [E]leventh [A]mendment . . . . The 22 Supreme Court has made it clear that [§] 1983 does not constitute an abrogation of the [E]leventh [A
Citator
- Cited by
- 35 opinions
Roger L. Erickson, William E. Isaeff, Deputy Atty. Gen., Carson City, Nev., argued, for defendants-appellees; John R. McCormick, Fallon, Nev., Erickson, Thorpe, Swainston Cobb, Ltd., Reno, Nev., on brief.
[2] As to the dismissal of suit against Judge Teurman and District Attorney Hill, we agree with the district court that Judge Teurman, as a witness in a state judicial proceeding, and District Attorney Hill, as a state prosecutor, are both absolutely immune from civil rights suits.O'Connor, supra,507 F. Supp. at 548-50. O'Connor also suggests that besides Judge Teurman's participation as a witness in the state judicial proceeding, his handling of O'Connor's prior municipal court action violated his constitutional rights. Clearly, though, Judge Teurman is immune from civil rights suits for judicial acts not taken in the absence of all jurisdiction.Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 357, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 1105, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978);Rankin v. Howard,633 F.2d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 1980),cert.denied,451 U.S. 939, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 68 L.Ed.2d 326 (1981).
[3] O'Connor alleged that the State of Nevada denied him his rights under the seventh and fourteenth amendments by requiring a deposit for a civil jury trial pursuant to Rule 38 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. O'Connor sought injunctive relief and damages for these alleged constitutional violations. The district judge dismissed the action on the basis that the seventh amendment right to jury trial in civil cases does not apply in state court.O'Connor, supra,507 F. Supp. at 548.
[4] It was error for the district court to decide this issue. It is clear that under the eleventh amendment a state or its agencies cannot be sued in federal court without its consent.Alabama v.Pugh,438 U.S. 781, 782, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 3058, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978);Mills Music, Inc. v. Arizona,591 F.2d 1278(9th Cir. 1979). Nevada has explicitly refused to waive its immunity to suit under the eleventh amendment. Nev. Rev.Stat. § 41.031(3). The Supreme Court has made it clear that section 1983 does not constitute an abrogation of the eleventh amendment immunity of the states.Quern v. Jordan,440 U.S. 332, 338-41, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 1144-1145, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979). The district court should have dismissed the claims against the State on the basis of the eleventh amendment.
[5] The district court also granted a motion to dismiss on behalf of the State Bar of Nevada. The district court reasoned that the state bar is the investigative arm of the Supreme Court of Nevada, charged with investigating and disciplining the legal profession of the state, and as such an agency, it too is immune from suit in federal court under the eleventh amendment.O'Connor, supra,507 F. Supp. at 550. We agree.Ginter v. StateBar of Nevada,625 F.2d 829(9th Cir. 1980) (per curiam).
[6] The Supreme Court of Nevada and the Third Judicial District Court of Nevada, as agencies of the state, were also properly dismissed from suit on eleventh amendment grounds.O'Connor,supra,507 F. Supp. at 550-51.
[7] AFFIRMED.
- Honorable William G. East, Senior United States District Judge, District of Oregon, sitting by designation. ↩