Berman v. Brown

Ninth Circuit

Berman v. Brown

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 27, 2025

Docket24-787

StatusUnpublished

This text of Berman v. Brown (Berman v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Berman v. Brown, (9th Cir. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 27 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN LAURENCE BERMAN, No. 24-787 D.C. No. 4:23-cv-04644-YGR Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

Honorable Justice TRACIE BROWN,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 18, 2025**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

John Laurence Berman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of state court proceedings. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.

* 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). 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Berman’s action because his claims are

barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Munoz v. Superior Ct. of Los

Angeles County, 91 F.4th 977, 981 (9th Cir. 2024) (affirming dismissal of § 1983

claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief because “state court judges cannot

be sued in federal court in their judicial capacity under the Eleventh Amendment,”

including for prospective injunctive relief); Lund v. Cowan, 5 F.4th 964, 969 (9th

Cir. 2021) (“The Eleventh Amendment does not permit retrospective declaratory

relief.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Berman’s motion to

reopen because Berman failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist.

No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.

1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 59 or 60).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Berman’s action

without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v.

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

standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper

where amendment would be futile).

We reject as without merit Berman’s contentions that the district court

2 24-787 denied him due process.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-787

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI