Freeman v. Oakland Unified School District

179 F.3d 846 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jul 1, 1999

Full text

Wellborn FREEMAN v. OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

ORDER Wellborn Freeman appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in his suit against the Oakland Unified School District (the School District). Specifically, Freeman appeals from the district court’s finding that his claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Freeman further argues that even if the Eleventh Amendment does bar his FEHA claim, the district court should have dismissed the claim without prejudice to his reasserting it in state court. The district court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars Freeman’s FEHA claim. We agree. The School District is a state agency for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. See Belanger v. — 847 — Madera Unified Sch. Dist., 963 F.2d 248, 250 (9th Cir.1992). 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is not a congressional abrogation of state sovereign immunity. See Pennhurst State Sch. and Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 121, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (holding the Eleventh Amendment “applies ... to state law claims brought into federal court under pendent jurisdiction”). California has not waived its immunity to FEHA actions in federal court. See Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 441 (9th Cir.1995) (“[A] statute consenting to suit in state court does not constitute consent to suit in federal court.”). Holding that the Eleventh Amendment bars Freeman’s FEHA claim in federal court, we also hold that the district court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate that claim. Accordingly, we order the district court to dismiss the claim without prejudice to it being re-filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. The Eleventh Amendment is a limit on federal courts’ jurisdiction. See California v. Deep Sea Research, Inc., 523 U.S. 491, 118 S.Ct. 1464, 1470, 149 L.Ed.2d 626 (1998). Dismissals for lack of jurisdiction “should be ... without prejudice so that a plaintiff may reassert his claims in a competent' court.” Frigard v. United States, 862 F.2d 201, 204 (9th Cir.1988). Thus, we order the district court to modify its decision to specify that Freeman’s FEHA claim is “dismissed without prejudice.” SO ORDERED.

Parentheticals

holding that dismissals 16 under the Eleventh Amendment should be without prejudice so that the plaintiff “may 17 reassert his claims in a competent court”
Tron-Haukebo v. Washington State Department of Transportation
holding that dismissals under the Eleventh Amendment should be without 3 prejudice so that the plaintiff “may reassert his claims in a competent court”
King v. State of Louisiana
holding that dismissals under the Eleventh Amendment should be without 5 prejudice so that the plaintiff “may reassert his claims in a competent court”
King v. State of Louisiana
holding that dismissals under the Eleventh Amendment should be without 5 prejudice so that the plaintiff “may reassert his claims in a competent court”
King v. Iberville Parish
holding that OUSD “is a state agency for 17 purposes of the Eleventh Amendment.”
B. v. City of Oakland
holding that dismissals for lack of jurisdiction 22 should be without prejudice
Mirch v. United States
explaining that dismissals for 24 lack of jurisdiction “should be . . . without prejudice so that a plaintiff may reassert his claims 25 in a competent court.”
Casanova v. Morrow Jr
explaining that dismissals for lack of 14 jurisdiction “should be . . . without prejudice so that a plaintiff may reassert his claims in a 15 competent court.”
China Auto Logistics, Inc. v. DLA Piper, LLP
explaining that dismissals for lack of 4|| jurisdiction “should be ... without prejudice so that a plaintiff may reassert his claims in a competent court.” (internal citations omitted)
Contreras v. Taylor
noting that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be without 14 prejudice
Amana Global Company v. King County Flood Control Zone District
instructing dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be “without prejudice to [the action] being re-filed in a court of competent jurisdiction”
C.G. v. Hain Celestial Group Inc.
instructing dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be “without prejudice to [the action] being re-filed in a court of competent jurisdiction”
Tameka Renee Crosland v. Baron Silverstein