Case Information
*1 08-4019-cv M amot v. Bd. of Regents
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Unitеd States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of nd New York, on the 22 day of February, two thousand ten.
PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI,
REENA RAGGI,
RICHARD D. CUDAHY, [*]
Circuit Judges .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIO R. MAMOT,
Plaintiff-Appellant ,
v. No. 08-4019-cv THE BOARD OF REGENTS, THE NEW YORK
STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THE
UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
Defendants-Appellees .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR APPELLANTS: Patricio R. Mamot, pro se , Long Island City, New
York.
FOR APPELLEES: Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General of the State
of New York; Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor *2 General; Laura R. Johnson, Assistant Solicitor General; New York, New York.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Dora L. Irizаrry, Judge ).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on June 19, 2008, is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff Patricio R. Mamot, pro se, appeals from the dismissal of his complаint
alleging that defendants wrongfully refused to “grandfather” him into New York State’s
licensing requirements for speech pаthologists. We review a district court’s dismissal of a
comрlaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1);
Scherer v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y,
Liberally construed, Mamot’s complaint alleges civil rights claims against the state
defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Elеventh Amendment bars such a federal court
action аgainst a state or its agencies absent a waiver оf immunity or congressional legislation
specifically overriding immunity. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S.
89, 99-100 (1984). It is well-estаblished that New York has not consented to § 1983 suits
in federal court, see Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park Comm’n,
*3
Here, Mamot filed his complaint agаinst the Board of Regents, the New York State
Education Dеpartment, and the University of the State of New York. As agеncies of the
State of New York, these defendants are all entitled to immunity under the Eleventh
Amendment, and the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Mamot’s claims.
See United States v. City of Yonkers,
Finally, although we have jurisdiction to review the district court’s order denying
Mamot’s motion for reconsiderаtion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), we do nоt
address the issue because Mamot has not raised any such challenge on appeal. See LoSаcco
v. City of Middletown,
We have considered Mamot’s other arguments on appеal and conclude that they lack merit. Accordingly, wе AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, Clerk of Court
[*] Circuit Judge Richard D. Cudahy of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.