Peli Hunt v. Horwitz Cron and Armstrong LLP

MEMORANDUM

Peli Popovich Hunt appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising from her bankruptcy proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Gant v. County of Los Angeles, 772 F.3d 608, 614 (9th Cir.2014) (dismissal for failure to state a claim), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hunt’s federal and state law claims against defendant Robles because he is entitled to judicial immunity. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1072 (9th Cir.1986) (en banc) (judges are absolutely immune from damages liability for acts performed in their official capacities); Soliz v. Williams, 74 Cal.App.4th 577 , 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 184, 189 (1999) (in California, “judges are granted immunity from civil suit in the exercise of their judicial functions”). Contrary to her contention, Hunt failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Robles acted in the 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 actions taken “in clear absence of all jurisdiction” and those taken merely “in excess…