Unpublished Disposition, 923 F.2d 862 (9th Cir. 1991)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 923 F.2d 862 (9th Cir. 1991)

Dwayne R. JOST, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.STATE of OREGON, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 89-35886.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 9, 1991.* Decided Jan. 17, 1991.

Before JAMES R. BROWNING, CANBY and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM** 

Dwayne Jost appeals the dismissal of this action by the district court. We affirm.

Mr. Jost has sued the state of Oregon for money damages for wrongfully incarcerating him, and for wrongfully administering medication to him against his will. A state cannot be sued in federal court for compensatory damages unless it has consented to such a suit, or unless Congress has properly and unequivocally abrogated that immunity. Welch v. Texas Dep't of Highways, 483 U.S. 468, 472-74 (1987).

Mr. Jost has not alleged, nor is there any evidence, that the state of Oregon has waived its immunity to such an action as this. Neither has Mr. Jost alleged, nor is there any evidence, that Congress has abrogated Oregon's immunity from an action such as federal court for compensatory damages unless it has consented to such a suit, or unless Congress has properly and unequivocally abrogated that immunity. Welch v. Texas Dep't of Highways, 483 U.S. 468, 472-74 (1987).

Mr. Jost has not alleged, nor is there any evidence, that the state of Oregon has waived its immunity to such an action as this. Neither has Mr. Jost alleged, nor is there any evidence, that Congress has abrogated Oregon's immunity from an action such as this.

Therefore, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.