22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4f5,MEMORANDUM Kenneth Barker appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from his divorce proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. Dismissal of Barker’s action was proper because Judge Agbayani, Jr. was entitled to judicial immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 , 112 S.Ct. 286 , 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam) (holding that judges retain their immunity from suit when they are accused of acting maliciously or corruptly); 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 them official capacities.”). Barker’s contentions that the district court violated his constitutional rights are unpersuasive. Barker’s motion for calendar preference, filed on August 8,2016, is denied as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T52c,

MEMORANDUM

Kenneth Barker appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from his divorce proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Barker’s action was proper because Judge Agbayani, Jr. was entitled to judicial immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 , 112 S.Ct. 286 , 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam) (holding that judges retain their immunity from suit when they are accused of acting maliciously or corruptly); 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 them official capacities.”).

Barker’s contentions that the district court violated his constitutional rights are unpersuasive.

Barker’s motion for calendar preference, filed on August 8,2016, is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.