Simona Tanasescu v. the State Bar of California;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SIMONA TANASESCU,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-55947
D.C. No. 8:11-cv-00700-CJC-
MAN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2014**
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Simona Tanasescu appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the State Bar of California
and five private attorneys violated her rights in connection with the dissolutions of
FILED
APR 14 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

her marriage and her sister’s marriage. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo, Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973
(9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Tanasescu’s claims against the State
Bar of California as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Hirsh v. Justices of
the Supreme Court, 67 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (the State Bar of
California is an arm of the state and is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity);
see also Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984)
(Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to states and their agencies or
departments “regardless of the nature of the relief sought”).
The district court properly dismissed Tanasescu’s claims against the private
parties because Tanasescu failed to allege facts showing that these defendants were
acting under color of state law. See Simmons v. Sacramento Cnty. Superior Court,
318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (private parties do not generally act under
color of state law for § 1983 purposes, and conclusory allegations that a private
party conspired with a state actor to deprive plaintiff of constitutional rights are
insufficient to state a claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Tanasescu’s request
to amend her complaint because the proposed amendments would have been futile.
12-55947 2

-- 2 of 3 --

See Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth the
standard of review and explaining that denial of request to amend complaint
appropriate where amendment would be futile).
Tanasescu’s contention that the district court ignored portions of her
complaint and objections to the report and recommendation is unsupported by the
record.
AFFIRMED.
12-55947 3

-- 3 of 3 --