Holguin

Holguin v. Flood Control District

Good Law
70 F. App'x 958
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 29, 2003No. 02-17415; D.C. No. CV-01-00482-FRZCalifornia301 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Dolores Holguin appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice his action challenging the compensation he received as relocation benefits from the Clifton, Arizona Flood Control Project when his mobile home was *959 damaged in a 1988 flood. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Murphey v. Lanier, 204 F.3d 911, 912 (9th Cir.2000) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir.1996) (failure to state a claim). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Holguin’s claims against the state agency defendants because Holguin failed to show an express waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity or make a proper request for prospective injunctive relief. See Yakama Indian Nation v. Wash. Dep’t of Revenue, 176 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.1999)

The district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Holguin’s claims against the Federal Emergency Management Agency. See Graham v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 149 F.3d 997 , 1001 & n. 1 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that the Stafford Act does not create a private right of action). The district court also properly concluded that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.