[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-14095 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 1, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 08-00173-CV-WS-C
LINDA CONE SELENSKY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF ALABAMA,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
_________________________
(April 1, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Linda Cone Selensky appeals the district court’s order dismissing her pro se
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and, alternatively, as frivolous
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Because we find that Selensky’s claims are
barred by the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, we affirm.1
Selensky’s present suit names the State of Alabama as the sole defendant.
The Eleventh Amendment prohibits suits in federal courts against a state, except
where such immunity is waived by the state or abrogated by Congress. U.S.
C ONST. amend. XI; see Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 2003).
The State of Alabama has not agreed to be sued under the circumstances present
here. The Alabama State Constitution provides “[t]hat the State of Alabama shall
never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity.” A LA. C ONST. Art. I,
§ 14; see also Alabama v. Pugh, 439 U.S. 781, 782 (1978). Selensky has presented
no evidence that Congress abrogated Alabama’s Eleventh Amendment immunity
over her present claims. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal
of this action.
1
We may affirm the district court’s judgment on any ground that appears in the record,
see Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007); we note, however,
that the magistrate judge recommended dismissal for the reasons later adopted by the district
court as well as on grounds of Eleventh Amendment immunity.
2