Holm v. Washington State Penitentiary

19 F. App'x 704
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 27, 2001
DocketNo. 99-35287; D.C. No. CV-97-03064-LRS
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 19 F. App'x 704 (Holm v. Washington State Penitentiary) 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
Holm v. Washington State Penitentiary, 19 F. App'x 704 (9th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

As Amended on Denial of Rehearing Nov. 2, 2001.

Before KOZINSKI and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER,* Senior District Judge.

[705]*705MEMORANDUM **

Amber Holm, a former employee of Washington State Penitentiary (WSP), asserts a claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12112. The magistrate judge granted summary judgment for WSP and we affirm.

Because WSP is an agency of the State of Washington, Holm’s claim, insofar as it seeks money damages, is barred by Board of Trustees v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001). To the extent Holm seeks injunctive relief, such as expungement or revision of employment records or reinstatement, relief could be sought only against individual defendants, not WSP, and none are named. See Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). Finally, Holm’s attempt to assert a claim under Title II of the ADA is barred by our decision in Zimmerman v. Oregon Department of Justice, 170 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir.1999) (Title II does not apply to employment).

We vacate, as improperly granted, the part of the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs hostile work environment claims, because these claims were not before the court. In all other respects, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

VACATED in part and AFFIRMED in part.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

Related

Motoyama v. Hawaii, Department of Transportation
864 F. Supp. 2d 965 (D. Hawaii, 2012)
Holm v. Washington State Penitentiary
535 U.S. 999 (Supreme Court, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 F. App'x 704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holm-v-washington-state-penitentiary-ca9-2001.