Richard Gillaspy v. Jonathan Fielding
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Richard Gillaspy appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal and state causes of action in connection with his discharge from employment with the County of Los Angeles. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916 , 922 (9th Cir. 2004) (judicial immunity and statute of limitations); Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004) (failure to state a claim). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gillaspy’s claims against defendants Yaffe, Armstrong, Kriegler, Turner, and Stiglitz, because these defendants are immune from liability. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (barring injunctive relief against a judicial officer “unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable”); Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 , 112 S.Ct. 286 , 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam) (judges retain their immunity from suit when they are accused of acting maliciously or corruptly); Olsen, 363 F.3d at 923 (absolute immunity extended to agency representatives performing functions analogous to those of a judge).