eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2017-10

Brian Alexis v. County of Los Angeles , 698 F. App'x 345 ( 2017 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN ALEXIS, AKA Blagoy Petrov                 No. 15-56035
Alexiev,
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01529-ODW-GJS
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, official
capacity; 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 September 27, 2017**
Before:      SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Brian Alexis, AKA Blagoy Petrov Alexiev, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging claims arising
from a state court family law case. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    .
*
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).
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler,
    627 F.3d 338
    , 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Alexis’ claims against Judges Lewis
and Pacheco on the basis of judicial immunity. See Duvall v. County of Kitsap,
    260 F.3d 1124
    , 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (describing factors relevant to whether an act
is judicial in nature and therefore subject to judicial immunity).
The district court properly dismissed Alexis’ claims alleging that the County
of Los Angeles is liable because it is “represented” by the Judges, as the California
Superior Court and its judges are State actors, not County actors. See Greater L.A.
Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin,
    812 F.2d 1103
    , 1110 (9th Cir. 1987) (suit
against a California superior court is a suit against the State, which is barred by
Eleventh Amendment immunity), superseded by statute on other grounds; cf.
Hyland v. Wonder,
    117 F.3d 405
    , 413 (9th Cir. 1997) (describing California
Superior Court judges as State agents or employees).
AFFIRMED.
2                                    15-56035