9th Circuit upholds dismissal of attorney Ernest Calhoon's civil rights lawsuit against California's State Bar…
Calhoon v. State Bar of California
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit upholds dismissal of attorney Ernest Calhoon's civil rights lawsuit against California's State Bar and courts, ruling sovereign immunity blocks the claims.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Ernest Calhoon's lawsuit against the State Bar of California and several California courts. The court ruled that these entities are arms of the state and therefore protected by sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, meaning federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear the claims. The court also upheld the denial of Calhoon's requests to amend his complaint and to reopen the case, finding amendment would be futile and his post-judgment motions were either untimely or insufficient.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects Ernest Calhoon and his ability to pursue this lawsuit in federal court. More broadly, it reinforces existing legal protections for California state bar and judicial entities, making it harder for individuals to sue those bodies for civil rights violations in federal court.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 20, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 20, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 20, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Ernest Calhoon, an attorney, sued the State Bar of California, the California Supreme Court, the California Court of Appeal, and the Los Angeles County Superior Court in federal court. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, a federal law that allows people to sue government officials for civil rights violations. The central legal question was whether these California state entities could be sued in federal court under that law. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal on sovereign immunity grounds. Under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, states and entities considered 'arms of the state' generally cannot be sued in federal court without their consent. The court cited prior rulings establishing that the State Bar of California and California's judicial branch entities qualify as arms of the state. Because of this, the federal court simply lacked the power, called subject matter jurisdiction, to hear the case. The court also upheld the denial of Calhoon's request for leave to amend his complaint, concluding that any amendment would be futile. Calhoon had not explained how he could overcome the sovereign immunity bar, so allowing him to refile a revised complaint would not have changed the outcome. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying Calhoon's post-judgment motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60. His Rule 59 motion was filed too late under the 28-day deadline, and his Rule 60 motion did not demonstrate a valid reason to reopen the judgment. The three-judge panel unanimously affirmed the lower court on all points. No dissent was noted in the opinion.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERNEST R. CALHOON, Attorney, No. 24-7627 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 5:23-cv-00600-JGB-SHK v. MEMORANDUM* STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA; CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT; LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND DISTRICT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 15, 2026** Before: McKEOWN, OWENS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Ernest R. Calhoon appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his claims against the State Bar of California and Judicial Branch defendants and denial of * 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). leave to amend and of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 and 60 motions. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we need not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 1. “We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of sovereign immunity or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Ariz. Students’ Ass’n v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 824 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2016). The district court properly dismissed Calhoon’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the State Bar of California and Judicial Branch defendants (i.e., California Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, and California Superior Courts) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity. States and “governmental entities that are considered ‘arms of the State’ for Eleventh Amendment purposes” are not liable under § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70 (1989). The State Bar “is an arm of the state and entitled to sovereign immunity” under the Eleventh Amendment. Kohn v. State Bar of Cal., 87 F.4th 1021, 1032 (9th Cir. 2023) (en banc). The same is true for the Judicial Branch Defendants. See, e.g., Simmons v. Sacramento Cnty. Superior Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003). As such, dismissal based on subject matter jurisdiction is proper. Thus, we need not decide whether dismissal may be affirmed on alternative failure to state a claim grounds. 2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend for futility. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725–26 (9th Cir. 2 24-7627 2000) (“A district court acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile . . . .”). Calhoon has continued to fail to explain how to overcome the sovereign immunity bar and how his Section 1983 claim is viable. 3. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Calhoon’s Rule 59 and 60 motions. “A Rule 59 motion for a new trial is confided to the discretion of the district court, whose decision will be overturned on appeal only for abuse of discretion.” Kode v. Carlson, 596 F.3d 608, 611 (9th Cir. 2010); see also In re Tracht Gut, LLC, 836 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir. 2016) (same standard of review for Rule 60 motion). The district court properly concluded that Calhoon’s Rule 59 motion was untimely, and it did not abuse its discretion when it denied the Rule 60 motion due to Calhoon’s failure to show why he was entitled to relief from the court’s judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b) (28 days); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (28 days); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. To the extent Calhoon continues to press this issue, he raises no new, compelling reasons on appeal. AFFIRMED. 3 24-7627
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.