David L. Shoopman v. State of California Worker's Compensation Appeals Board

42 F.3d 1402 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. David L. SHOOPMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; Worker's Compensation Appeals Board, Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-16040. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 18, 1994. * Decided Dec. 7, 1994. 1 Before: ALARCON and HALL, Circuit Judges, and KING, ** District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 David L. Shoopman appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing his civil rights action on the grounds that (1) the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and (2) the action is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . We review de novo, Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1352 (9th Cir.1993) (eleventh amendment); Broughton Lumber Co. v. Columbia River Gorge Comm'n, 975 F.2d 616, 618 (9th Cir.1992) (subject-matter jurisdiction), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 60 (1993), and affirm in part and reverse in part. BACKGROUND 4 Shoopman, who was disabled…