eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2021-02

Arthur Lopez v. Manuel Ramirez ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTHUR LOPEZ,                                   No.    20-55224
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 5:18-cv-01835-VBF-
MRW
v.
MANUEL A. RAMIREZ, Presiding Judge;             MEMORANDUM*
CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS 4TH
DISTRICT DIVISION TWO,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before:      FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Arthur Lopez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging that a California court rule violated his due
process rights. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo
*
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).
a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Jachetta v. United States,
    653 F.3d 898
    , 903 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lopez’s action because defendants are
entitled to immunity, and to the extent Lopez seeks injunctive relief, his action is
barred by the Younger abstention doctrine. See Simmons v. Sacramento Cty.
Superior Court,
    318 F.3d 1156
    , 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (state courts, as an arm of
state government, have Eleventh Amendment immunity); Ashelman v. Pope,
    793 F.2d 1072
    , 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (judges are absolutely immune from
damage liability for acts performed in their official capacities); see also Younger v.
Harris,
    401 U.S. 37
    , 43 (1971) (recognizing the longstanding public policy against
federal court interference with state court proceedings).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend
because amendment would have been futile. See Gordon v. City of Oakland,
    627 F.3d 1092
    , 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for
dismissing without leave to amend).
Lopez’s motion for extension of time to file a supplemental reply brief
(Docket Entry No. 26) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2                                    20-55224