Daniel Dydzak v. Tani Cantil-Sakauye

MEMORANDUM

Daniel David Dydzak, a disbarred California attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging constitutional claims related to his disbarment, and from its order declaring him a vexatious litigant. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim. Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1061 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Dydzak’s claims against the federal judges and California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye because they are immune from liability. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 , 98 S.Ct. 1099 , 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (“A judge is absolutely immune from liability for his judicial acts even if his exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors.”).

The district court properly dismissed on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata Dydzak’s claims against defendants Scott J. Drexel, Joann Remke, the California Supreme Court, and California Supreme Court Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin R. Baxter, Kathryn M. Werdegar, Ming W. Chin, Carol A. Corrigan, and Ronald M. George, because…