Akan Boyd v. Office of Risk Insurance Manag

MEMORANDUM ** Akan Boyd appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Boyd’s action because California state agencies are immune from suit in federal court, and Boyd failed to amend to state a claim against any individual defendant despite an opportunity to do so. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (§ 1983 does not override the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from being sued in federal court); Riggle v. California, 577 F.2d 579, 585-86 (9th Cir.1978) (California Tort Claims Act does not waive the states’ or state agencies’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from being sued in federal court). Boyd’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. Footnotes [**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.