Mary Jones v. Edmund Brown, Jr.

MEMORANDUM

Mary Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from the denial of her workers’ compensation claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and we may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Jones’ claims against defendant Caplane as barred by judicial immunity. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; see also Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Absolute immunity extends to agency officials when they preside over hearings, initiate agency adjudication, or otherwise perform functions analogous to judges and prosecutors.”).

The district court properly dismissed Jones’ claims against defendants Brown and Schwarzenegger because Jones failed to state a plausible claim for relief. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 , 69 n.24, 117 S.Ct. 1055 , 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997) (“State officers in their official capacities, like States…