Allum v. State of Montana

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 29, 2026
• Docket: 24-7586
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 29 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT L. ALLUM, No. 24-7586

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00061-DLC v. MEMORANDUM* STATE OF MONTANA; MONTANA STATE FUND; DOES, 1-100, Inclusive,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 26, 2026**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Robert L. Allum appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process and other claims related to his

workers’ compensation benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 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). review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) based

on issue preclusion. Love v. Villacana, 73 F.4th 751, 754 (9th Cir. 2023). We

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Allum’s action as barred by issue

preclusion because the issues of whether the Montana State Fund is an arm of the

state and whether Montana had consented to suit in federal court were actually

litigated and decided in Allum’s prior federal court action. See Love, 73 F.4th at

754 (setting forth requirements for issue preclusion under federal law); see also

Jensen v. Brown, 131 F.4th 677, 696 (9th Cir. 2025) (“The Eleventh Amendment

bars suits against the State or its agencies for all types of relief, absent unequivocal

consent by the state.” (citation omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Allum’s

complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See

Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011)

(setting forth standard of review and stating that leave to amend may be denied

where amendment would be futile).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-7586