Shalaby v. California

Ninth Circuit

Shalaby v. California

132 F. App'x 720

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 24, 2005

DocketNo. 03-16410

StatusPublished

This text of 132 F. App'x 720 (Shalaby v. California) 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

Shalaby v. California, 132 F. App'x 720 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Andrew W. Shalaby appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action against the State of California. We affirm.

Shalaby sued the state for the purpose of having one of its statutes¹ declared unconstitutional. However, with certain exceptions, pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution “[t]he Judicial power of the United States” does not extend to an action by a citizen against a State. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900, 908, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 3-4, 9-10, 21, 10 S.Ct. 504, 505, 509, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890). No exception to that prohibition applies here. See Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 55, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1123, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996) (exception when Congress properly abrogates immunity); Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299, 304-05, 110 S.Ct. 1868, 1872, 109 L.Ed.2d 264 (1990) (exception when state waives immunity); Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 155-56, 28 S.Ct. 441, 452, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) (state official can be enjoined).

AFFIRMED.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Andrew W. Shalaby appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action against the State of California. We affirm.

Shalaby sued the state for the purpose of having one of its statutes¹ declared unconstitutional. However, with certain exceptions, pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution “[t]he Judicial power of the United States” does not extend to an action by a citizen against a State. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900, 908, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 3-4, 9-10, 21, 10 S.Ct. 504, 505, 509, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890). No exception to that prohibition applies here. See Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 55, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1123, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996) (exception when Congress properly abrogates immunity); Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299, 304-05, 110 S.Ct. 1868, 1872, 109 L.Ed.2d 264 (1990) (exception when state waives immunity); Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 155-56, 28 S.Ct. 441, 452, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) (state official can be enjoined).

AFFIRMED.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 F. App'x 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shalaby-v-california-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack