Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Freeman v. Oakland Unified School District

179 F.3d 846

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1999-07-01
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that dismissals 16 under the Eleventh Amendment should be without prejudice so that the plaintiff “may 17 reassert his claims in a competent court”
  • holding that dismissals under the Eleventh Amendment should be without 5 prejudice so that the plaintiff “may reassert his claims in a competent court”
  • holding that dismissals under the Eleventh Amendment should be without 3 prejudice so that the plaintiff “may reassert his claims in a competent court”
  • holding that OUSD “is a state agency for 17 purposes of the Eleventh Amendment.”
  • holding that dismissals for lack of jurisdiction 22 should be without prejudice
  • explaining that dismissals for 24 lack of jurisdiction “should be . . . without prejudice so that a plaintiff may reassert his claims 25 in a competent court.”
  • explaining that dismissals for lack of 14 jurisdiction “should be . . . without prejudice so that a plaintiff may reassert his claims in a 15 competent court.”
  • explaining that dismissals for lack of 4

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Freeman v. Oakland Unified School District. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
94 opinions
FREEMAN v. OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,179 F.3d 846(9th Cir. 1999)
WELLBORN FREEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 98-16286
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 17, 1999 — San Francisco, California.
Filed July 1, 1999
COUNSEL
Debra A. Duggan, Oakland, California, for the plaintiff-appellant.

Jane Bond Moore, Oakland Unified School District, Oakland, California, for the defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Fern M. Smith, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. CV-96-1539-FMS.
Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Betty B. Fletcher, and Cynthia Holcomb Hall, Circuit Judges.
[1]
ORDER
[2] Wellborn Freeman appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment in his suit against the Oakland Unified School District (the School District). Specifically, Freeman appeals from the district court's finding that his claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) is barred by theEleventhAmendment to the United States Constitution. Freeman further argues that even if theEleventhAmendment does bar his FEHA claim, the district court should have dismissed the claim without prejudice to his reasserting it in state court.

[3] The district court held that theEleventhAmendment bars Freeman's FEHA claim. We agree. The School District is a state agency for purposes of theEleventhAmendment. See Belanger v.Page 847Madera Unified Sch. Dist.,963 F.2d 248,250(9th Cir. 1992).28 U.S.C. § 1367is not a congressional abrogation of state sovereign immunity. See Pennhurst State Sch. and Hosp. v. Halderman,465 U.S. 89,121(holding theEleventhAmendment "applies . . . to state law claims brought into federal court under pendent jurisdiction"). California has not waived its immunity to FEHA actions in federal court. See Fordyce v. City of Seattle,55 F.3d 436,441(9th Cir. 1995) ("[A] statute consenting to suit in state court does not constitute consent to suit in federal court.").

[4] Holding that theEleventhAmendment bars Freeman's FEHA claim in federal court, we also hold that the district court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate that claim. Accordingly, we order the district court to dismiss the claim without prejudice to it being re-filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. TheEleventhAmendment is a limit on federal courts' jurisdiction. See California v. Deep Sea Research, Inc.,118 S.Ct. 1464,1470(1998). Dismissals for lack of jurisdiction "should be . . . without prejudice so that a plaintiff may reassert his claims in a competent court." Frigard v. United States,862 F.2d 201,204(9th Cir. 1988). Thus, we order the district court to modify its decision to specify that Freeman's FEHA claim is "dismissed without prejudice."

[5] SO ORDEREDPage 1111