Opinion
Argued & Submitted December 8, 2004.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Lynn S. Carman, Esq., San Rafael, CA, Byron J. Gross, Esq., Craig J. Cannizzo, Esq., Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, Inc., San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Irene K. Tamura, Esq., Julie Weng-Gutierrez, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, David F. Levi, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. CV-03-02110-DFL, CV-03-02336-DFL.
Before O'SCANNLAIN, COWEN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Robert E. Cowen, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
James Clayworth, dba Clayworth Healthcare Pharmacy, and two Medicaid recipients, brought suit against Diana Bonta, in her official capacity as Director of the California Department of Health Services, and the California Department of Health Services. Separately, a consortium of 14 Medi-Cal service providers and the Disabled Rights Union, a non-profit association of disabled persons, also brought suit against Bonta. From adverse judgments in district court, Bonta brought these appeals, which we have consolidated.
The case against the California Department of Health Services was eventually dismissed on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity and no cross-appeal has been filed.
The legal issue here has been resolved by Sanchez v. Johnson, 416 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.2005), filed this date, in which we held
Page 679.
that neither Medicaid recipients nor providers have a private right to challenge California's compliance with Medicaid provision § 30(A) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The judgment of the district court is
REVERSED.