Yvette Castaneda v. Margaret Burton-Cahill

MEMORANDUM

Yvette Castaneda appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising from a state court proceeding related to her dog. 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) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Castaneda’s federal and state law claims against defendants Burton-Cahill and Ore because they are entitled to judicial immunity under federal and Arizona law. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.1986) (en banc) (“Judges and those performing judge-like functions are absolutely immune from damage liability for acts performed in their official capacities.”); Acevedo v. Pima Cnty. Adult Prob. Dep’t., 142 Ariz. 319 , 690 P.2d 38, 40 (1984) (setting forth the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity in Arizona); Hernandez v. Maricopa County, 138 Ariz. 143 , 673 P.2d 341, 343 (Ariz.Ct.App.1988) (justices of the peace are entitled to judicial…