DAVID NOVAK V. STATE OF ARIZONA, No. 16-15063 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 3 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID NOVAK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-15063 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02234-JJT MEMORANDUM* STATE OF ARIZONA, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 25, 2016** Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. David Novak appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from his state criminal conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. Dismissal with prejudice of Novak’s action against the State of Arizona was proper because it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (holding that in the absence of consent, a suit against the State is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Novak leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend should be given unless the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment). AFFIRMED. 2 16-15063

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.