Azael Perales v. State of California

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 26-7019 September Term, 2025 1:26-cv-00210-APM

Filed On: August 12, 2026 Azael D. Perales,

Appellant

v.

State of California, Employment Development Department and California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, Orange County Office of Appeals,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Millett, Wilkins, and Katsas, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed January 26, 2026, dismissing appellant’s complaint be affirmed. Appellant has shown no error in the district court’s conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction to review actions taken by the appellee California state agencies. See Lightfoot v. District of Columbia, 448 F.3d 392, 398 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Insofar as appellant asserts that the district court would have had jurisdiction to order relief against the United States, appellant did not name the United States as a defendant in this case.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 26-7019 September Term, 2025

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

Page 2