Laufman

MEMORANDUM **

Harry Laufman (“Laufman”) appeals the district court’s denial of his effort to collect from intervenor-defendant State of Arizona on his default judgment against Nancy Elliston (“Elliston”), who had been appointed by an Arizona state court as the fiduciary for the estate of Laufman’s deceased wife. That default judgment had *89 been entered in Laufman’s 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (“Section 1988”) action against Elliston, based on the premise that she was a “state actor” for Section 1983 purposes. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

Laufman stakes his claim on the Arizona indemnification statute that applies to state agent liability (Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 41-621), pointing to this court’s decision in Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139 (9th Cir.1984) as assertedly supporting that claim. But Demery does nothing of the sort. Instead, while the court’s opinion there rejected the defendant’s assertion that the existence of such an indemnification statute bars a Section 1983 action against an individual state actor, it stated expressly (id. at 1148, citations omitted):

To the identical effect and on all fours with this case, see Glosen v. Barnes, 724 F.2d 1418, 1420-21 (9th…