Grant S. Kim v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Executive Office

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GRANT S. KIM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Executive
Office,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-55603
D.C. No. 5:21-cv-00644-JGB-SP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Grant S. Kim appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
action against the Superior Court of California seeking to overturn an unfavorable
judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
* 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).
FILED
JUN 29 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-55603
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th
Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Kim’s action because defendant is
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Simmons v. Sacramento County
Super. Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (state courts are “arms of the state”
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828,
831 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The Eleventh Amendment bars suits which seek either
damages or injunctive relief against a state, an arm of the state, its
instrumentalities, or its agencies.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --