Ivan Moore v. Michelle Rosenblatt ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 23 2019
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    IVAN RENE MOORE,                                No.    17-55708
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:15-cv-08021-ODW-GJS
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    MICHELLE ROSENBLATT, as an
    individual and in her official capacity as
    Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court; et
    al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted January 15, 2019**
    Before:      TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    Ivan Rene Moore appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
    dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging a conspiracy to deprive him of his
    constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de
    *
    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).
    novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Bain v.
    Cal. Teachers Ass’n, 
    891 F.3d 1206
    , 1211 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Moore’s federal claims for damages
    against the judicial and clerk defendants on the basis of judicial and quasi-judicial
    immunity. See Curry v. Castillo (In re Castillo), 
    297 F.3d 940
    , 952 (9th Cir. 2002)
    (absolute quasi-judicial immunity extends to “court clerks and other non-judicial
    officers for purely administrative acts”); Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 
    260 F.3d 1124
    , 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (describing factors relevant to the determination of
    whether an act is judicial in nature and subject to absolute judicial immunity); see
    also Stump v. Sparkman, 
    435 U.S. 349
    , 356-57 (1978) (absolute judicial immunity
    applies to judicial acts even when a judge’s conduct “was in error, was done
    maliciously, or was in excess of his authority . . . .”). We reject as unsupported by
    the record Moore’s contention that he alleged non-judicial conduct and sought
    injunctive relief that would not be covered by judicial immunity.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Moore further leave
    to amend after concluding that amendment would be futile. See Chappel v. Lab.
    Corp. of Am., 
    232 F.3d 719
    , 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (“A district court acts within its
    discretion to deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile . . . .”).
    2                                    17-55708
    We reject as meritless Moore’s contention that the district court erred by
    dismissing his claims without allowing early discovery from defendants.
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    Moore’s requests for oral argument, set forth in his opening and reply briefs,
    are denied.
    This case remains administratively closed as to appellee Kimberly Martin
    Braggs. See Docket Entry Nos. 6, 34. We therefore do not reach Moore’s
    contentions regarding dismissal of his claims against Braggs.
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                   17-55708