McCleary v. Nelmark

Ninth Circuit

McCleary v. Nelmark

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 19, 2026

Docket24-3625

StatusUnpublished

This text of McCleary v. Nelmark (McCleary v. Nelmark) 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

McCleary v. Nelmark, (9th Cir. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 19 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAYSEN McCLEARY, No. 24-3625 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 9:24-cv-00006-DLC v. MEMORANDUM* DAVID NELMARK; SCOTT BEATTIE,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Submitted February 18, 2026**

Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Jaysen McCleary 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 district court’s

dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Flaxman v.

* 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). Ferguson, 151 F.4th 1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2025). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed McCleary’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) (explaining that “state court

judges cannot be sued in federal court in their judicial capacity under the Eleventh

Amendment,” including for prospective injunctive relief).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing McCleary’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 when amendment would be futile).

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Lui v.

DeJoy, 129 F.4th 770, 780 (9th Cir. 2025).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-3625

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