Glaros v. California Department of Transportation

── Glaros v. California Department of Transportation ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NICHOLAS GLAROS, No. 24-7328 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:23-cv-08017-TJH-KES v. MEMORANDUM* CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; CALIFORNIA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY; ANDREW P. NIERENBERG, Deputy District Director Dist 7; ANGUS CHAN, Right of Way Agent; DOUG HOOVER, Chief Excess Land Branch Right of Way; CAROLYN DABNEY, Program Manager; SON NGUYEN; GRETCHEN McCROSKEY, Real Estate Agent; DUSTIN LUCE, Real Estate Agent; NICK KUFASIMES, Hosuing Finance Chief; TED BALLMER, Lawyer Legal; KIRSTEN BOWMAN; MARK A. BROWN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.  Submitted May 26, 2026** Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Nicholas Glaros appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his rights to acquire property and to due process in connection with a failed transaction to purchase property from the California Department of Transportation (“CalTrans”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Benavidez v. County of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1141 (9th Cir. 2021) (decision regarding qualified immunity); Sato v. Orange County Dep’t of Educ., 861 F.3d 923, 927-28 (9th Cir. 2017) (dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and decision regarding Eleventh Amendment immunity); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissal based on statute of limitations). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Glaros’s claims against CalTrans, the California Housing Finance Agency (“CalHFA”), and the state employees sued in their official capacities as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Jensen v. Brown, 131 F.4th 677, 696 (9th Cir. 2025) (explaining that “[t]he Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the State or its agencies for all types of relief, absent unequivocal consent by the state,” and that “this protection extends to state ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 24-7328 instrumentalities and agencies, as well as state officials sued in their official capacity” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court properly dismissed Glaros’s claims against attorneys Bowman and Brown because these defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See Gibson v. City of Portland, 165 F.4th 1265, 1284 (9th Cir. 2026) (“A state actor is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court properly dismissed Glaros’s remaining claims as barred by the statute of limitations. See Holt v. County of Orange, 91 F.4th 1013, 1018 (9th Cir. 2024) (explaining that the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to § 1983 actions and that “California’s two-year limitations period for personal