Tony-Tuan Nguyen v. Franz Miller , 713 F. App'x 653 ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TONY-TUAN NGUYEN, No. 17-55480
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:16-cv-02137-CJC-DFM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
FRANZ MILLER, as an individual and in
his official capacity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Tony-Tuan Nguyen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
*
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). Nguyen’s request for oral
argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072
(9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
Appellees Thien Kinh Tran, Thu Hien Thi Nguyen, and Andrew Weiss’s
motion for summary affirmance (Docket Entry No. 9) is granted because the
questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further
argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982). The
briefing schedule as to these appellees is vacated as moot.
The district court properly dismissed Nguyen’s claims against the Orange
County Superior Court, Miller, Moss, and Stafford on the bases of Eleventh
Amendment and judicial immunity. See Simmons v. Sacramento Cty. Superior
Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (suits against California superior courts
are barred by the Eleventh Amendment); Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d
1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that judges are generally immune from suit
for money damages and setting forth factors relevant to whether an act is judicial
in nature and subject to judicial immunity).
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).
2 17-55480
We reject as meritless Nguyen’s contentions of judicial bias.
AFFIRMED.
3 17-55480