Vashisht-Rota

DISCUSSION

14 Defendants move to dismiss, arguing once again that “judicial immunity insulates 15 Judge Fonnesbeck, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars all claims, and this Court lacks 16 personal jurisdiction over both defendants.” See Vashisht-Rota, 2023 WL 5767203, at *2; 17 (ECF 77, at 2). 18 Although thoroughly rewritten, Vashisht-Rota’s amended complaint is substantively 19 identical to her original complaint. (Compare ECF 1 with ECF 76.) There are many 20 changes, of course. She includes excerpts and filings from several high-profile cases, 21 including—among others—the Depp v. Heard and Carroll v. Trump trials. (ECF 76, 22 at 4–8, 127–243.) And her chosen equitable remedy has switched from injunctive to 23 declaratory relief. (Compare ECF 1, at 1 with ECF 76, at 1.) But none of this alters the 24 result. She ultimately continues to allege “malice, prejudice, and theft” in a manner that is 25 barred for reasons previously explained. (See ECF 76, at 14); see generally Vashisht-Rota, 26 2023 WL 5767203. 27 28 A. Judicial Immunity The doctrine of judicial immunity has long been a cornerstone of American jurisprudence. See, e.g., Bradley v. Fisher, 80…