JOSE M. GONZALEZ and JEFFREY DEAN v. Stephen Mayberg;

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).
09-56326
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE M. GONZALEZ and JEFFREY
DEAN,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
STEPHEN MAYBERG; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-56326
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-06248-CBM-
MLG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Consuelo B. Marshall, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 22, 2010**
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The district court properly dismissed the appellants’ claims under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) because the defendants are immune under the
FILED
OCT 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-56326 2
Eleventh Amendment. See Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 758 (1999) (state
immune under the Eleventh Amendment from action brought under the FLSA).
The district court also properly dismissed the appellants’ claims under the
Fourteenth Amendment because the defendants in their official capacities enjoyed
Eleventh Amendment immunity and in their individual capacities were entitled to
qualified immunity. See Holley v. California Dep’t of Corrections, 599 F.3d 1108,
1111 (9th Cir. 2010) (suits against state officials in their official capacities barred
by the Eleventh Amendment); Mueller v. Auker, 576 F.3d 979, 990 (9th Cir. 2009)
(recognizing that qualified immunity is appropriate where plaintiff has not alleged
any constitutional violation).
The district court properly dismissed the appellants’ claim for an order
prohibiting the defendants from intimidating and harassing them because both
appellants advised the court that they no longer reside at ASH. See Wilson v.
Nevada, 666 F.2d 378, 381-83 & n.5 (9th Cir. 1982).
Appellants’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --