Ronald Branson, M.D. v. Alan Haber

24 F.3d 244 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Ronald BRANSON, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alan HABER, Defendant-Appellee. No. 93-56696. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 11, 1994. * Decided May 13, 1994. Before: HUG, D.W. NELSON, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Ronald Branson appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action alleging that Allan Haber, a California Superior Court judge, violated his constitutional rights by setting aside a default judgment against the City of Los Angeles in Branson's on-going state-court action. Branson seeks injunctive relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 Judicial immunity does not bar claims for injunctive relief in section 1983 actions. Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42 (1984); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.1986) (en banc). Nevertheless, where the injunctive relief requested would…