Lundberg
Lundberg v. Matz
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Timothy Lundberg appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his action alleging that his constitutional rights were violated during proceedings in a criminal case in which Lundberg was a defendant. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal, Tanner v. Heise, 879 F.2d 572, 576 (9th Cir.1989), and we affirm.
Because Lundberg complained only of Judge Matz’s judicial acts, the district court properly ruled that Lundberg’s claims against Judge Matz were barred by absolute judicial immunity. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 , 98 S.Ct. 1099 , 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Mullis v. United States Bankr. Court for the Disk of Nev., 828 F.2d 1385, 1394 (9th Cir.1987).
Because Lundberg failed to allege in his complaint Layon’s misrepresentations, knowledge of falsity and intent to defraud with sufficient specificity, the district court properly dismissed Lundberg’s promissory fraud claim. See Engalla v. Permanente Med. Group, 15 Cal.4th 951 , 64 Cal. Rptr.2d 843 , 938 P.2d 903, 917 (Cal.1997); Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1245-46 (9th Cir.1996).