Herships v. Yolo County Superior Court
── Herships v. Yolo County Superior Court ──
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date: April 24, 2026
Category: General
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2026
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HOWARD HERSHIPS, No. 24-6811
D.C. No. 2:24-cv-00677-DAD-CKD
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
YOLO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 22, 2026**
Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.
Howard Herships appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of state court proceedings. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We
*
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).
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Herships’s action because his claims
are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Munoz v. Superior Ct. of Los
Angeles County, 91 F.4th 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2024) (explaining that California
Superior Courts are protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 24-6811
{# E23 (Nick, ruling section 1 answer 10): quoting a bill or a court opinion works
the way quoting a news article works. Select a passage above and the same panel
opens: the passage goes to the official you choose, with this document's own
address as its source and its own type. #}