Billy Phiffer v. State of Oregon

MEMORANDUM

Billy Ray Phiffer appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of the State of Oregon. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court did not err in dismissing Phiffer’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . “The Eleventh Amendment has been authoritatively construed to deprive federal courts of jurisdiction over suits by private parties against unconsenting States.” Seven Up Pete Venture v. Schweitzer, 523 F.3d 948, 952 (9th Cir.2008) (citing Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 , 116 S.Ct. 1114 , 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996)). The Supreme Court has held that Congress did not abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity in enacting § 1983. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 , 169 n. 17, 105 S.Ct. 3099 , 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985) (citing Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 , 99 S.Ct. 1139 , 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979)). Moreover, the State of Oregon has not expressly waived its immunity.

The district court did not err in dismissing Phiffer’s claims under the American with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The district court properly found the underlying actors allegedly involved in scheduling the hearing forming the basis-of Phiffer’s…