Ervin
Ervin v. Judicial Council
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Gary Ervin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo and may affirm on any basis fairly supported by the record. Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the ADA claims against the state corn’t judges because, as individuals, they were not liable under the ADA, see Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir.2002), and, to the extent Ervin raised retaliation claims against them, they enjoyed judicial immunity, see Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir.2001). The district court also properly dismissed the claims against Sacramento Superior Court and the Judicial Council because Ervin did not state a Title II ADA claim against these defendants. See Weinreich v. L.A. County Metro. Transp. Auth., 114 F.3d 976, 978-79 (9th Cir.1997).
Because we conclude that these defendants were properly dismissed, we need not consider and do not reach Ervin’s contentions that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his…