Leon Cody; Darlene Cody v. Superior Court of California Trinity County;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEON CODY; DARLENE CODY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
TRINITY COUNTY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-16233
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02383-JAM-KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Leon Cody and Darlene Cody appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their 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
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Serra 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).
FILED
JUL 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16233
Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1995 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Codys’ action as barred by the
Eleventh Amendment. See Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Ct., 318 F.3d
1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (state courts are “arms of the state” entitled to Eleventh
Amendment immunity); see also Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690
n.55 (1978) (official capacity suits are “another way of pleading an action against
an entity of which an officer is an agent”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying further leave to
amend because amendment would have been futile. See Gordon v. City of
Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review
and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment
would be futile).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --