Deavenport
Deavenport v. Winley
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Paul Deavenport appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations and fraud in connection with an arbitration proceeding before the Ventura County Bar Association. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the dismissal based on judicial immunity, Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1011 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Deavenport’s section 1983 claims against defendants Bolker and Andrews, the administrator of the arbitration program and the arbitrator, respectively, for failure to allege that they acted beyond the scope of their jurisdiction. See Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 6200(f) (providing that “an arbitrator or mediator, as well as the arbitrating association and its directors, officers, and employees, shall have the same immunity which attaches in judicial proceedings”); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir.1986) (concluding that plaintiffs failure to allege that a judicial officer acted “beyond the scope of the court’s jurisdiction” justifies dismissal).