A. Chaudry v. California Court of Appeal

MEMORANDUM

A. Waheed Chaudry appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from state court appellate proceedings involving him and his homeowners association. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076 , 1077 n. 1 (9th Cir.2006). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Chaudry’s claim for damages against defendant Haller in her individual capacity because Haller is entitled to judicial immunity. See Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir.1999) (explaining that “[a] judge is not deprived of immunity because he takes actions which are in error ... or are in excess of his authority[,]” and setting forth the two exceptions to judicial immunity). Contrary to Chaudry’s contention, Chaudry failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Haller acted in clear absence of all jurisdiction. See O’Neil v. City of Lake Oswego, 642 F.2d 367 , 369-70 (9th Cir.1981) (discussing the distinction between acts taken “in clear absence of all jurisdiction” and…