NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID NOVAK, No. 16-15063
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02234-JJT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STATE OF ARIZONA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
David Novak appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from his state
criminal conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d
*
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).
1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We may affirm on any basis supported by the
record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.
2008). We affirm.
Dismissal with prejudice of Novak’s action against the State of Arizona was
proper because it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Pennhurst State Sch.
& Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (holding that in the absence of
consent, a suit against the State is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Novak leave to
amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend should be
given unless the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-15063