BEA GLENN V. CALIFORNIA DEP'T OF EDUC., No. 17-15801 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BEA E. GLENN, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-15801 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05512-SK v. MEMORANDUM* CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Sallie Kim, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted January 16, 2018** Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Bea E. Glenn appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). (“ADA”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) in connection with the denial of disability benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. Eason v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 303 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Glenn’s action against the California Department of Education and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System because Glenn’s claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Mitchell v. L.A. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1988) (setting forth factors to determine whether a state governmental agency is an arm of the state subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity); L.A. Branch NAACP v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist., 714 F.2d 946, 950 (9th Cir. 1983) (California Department of Education is a state agency subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity); see also Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 360, 374 (2001) (holding that Title I of the ADA does not validly abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity); Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 91 (2000) (holding that the ADEA does not validly abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 17-15801
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.
