Tjoelker
Tjoelker v. Sonoma County
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
John Tjoelker appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and California law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.
The district court correctly held that it lacked federal jurisdiction to award injunctive or declaratory relief from decisions of the state court. See Doe & As socs. Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026 , 1029 (9th Cir.2001); Thompson v. *126 Thompson, 798 F.2d 1547, 1558 (9th Cir. 1986).
The district court properly found that the Eleventh Amendment barred Tjoelker’s claims against the State of California and state employees acting in their official capacities. See Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1327 (9th Cir.1991).
The judge defendants are entitled to absolute immunity for the actions alleged in the complaint. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 , 98 S.Ct. 1099 , 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir.1986).
The due process claims brought against the state employees in their individual capacities and the Sonoma County…