Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10780717
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Alter v. McConnell
No. 10780717 · Decided January 28, 2026
No. 10780717·Ninth Circuit · 2026·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
January 28, 2026
Citation
No. 10780717
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 28 2026
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH ALTER, No. 24-1276
D.C. No. 2:23-cv-05785-ODW-PD
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MITCH McCONNELL, Senator,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 22, 2026**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Joseph Alter appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
federal claims for declaratory relief. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We
*
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).
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Alter’s individual-capacity claims
against Senator McConnell because the claims are barred by the Speech and
Debate Clause. See Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 318 (1973) (concluding that
legitimate legislative acts “may not serve as the predicate for a suit”); Gravel v.
United States, 408 U.S. 606, 625 (1972) (noting that legislative acts include “other
matters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House”).
To the extent that Alter brought official-capacity claims against Senator
McConnell, the district court properly dismissed the claims because they are barred
by sovereign immunity. See Balser v. Dep’t of Just., Off. of U.S. Tr., 327 F.3d 903,
907 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that an official-capacity suit against an officer of the
United States is barred by sovereign immunity unless it is waived).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 24-1276
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 28 2026 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 28 2026 MOLLY C.
02Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 22, 2026** Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and R.
03Joseph Alter appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his federal claims for declaratory relief.
04We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 28 2026 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Alter v. McConnell in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on January 28, 2026.
Use the citation No. 10780717 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.