Kenn Goldbatt v. James Doerty
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Kenn Goldblatt appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims for violations of his due process and equal protection rights, and for failure to accommodate under the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616, 619 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Goldblatt’s claims regarding defendant’s alleged denial of ADA accommodations because they arose out of defendant’s rulings in his capacity as a judge presiding over a state court family law proceeding, and, therefore, were barred by absolute judicial immunity. See Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir.2001) (listing factors for determining whether an act is judicial in nature and explaining that a judge in marital dissolution proceedings was absolutely immune from claims related to orders denying a litigant ADA accommodations); see also Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-58 , 98 S.Ct. 1099 , 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (judges are immune from suit for actions within their jurisdiction even if…