Aristea Hupp v. Solera Oak Valley Greens Assoc, 708 F. App'x 347

Background

Paul and Aristea Hupp, proceeding pro se, sued in federal district court after a California state court entered a vexatious litigant order against Paul Hupp and related actions in the state proceedings.
The Hupps asserted federal and state law claims, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against private parties, a prosecutor/party named Huntsman, and several judges (Molloy, Riemer, Webster), and sought damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief.
The district court dismissed the complaint in full, concluding plaintiffs failed to state § 1983 claims, judges were immune from damages, declaratory relief was barred by the Eleventh Amendment, the challenge to the vexatious litigant statute was barred by Rooker–Feldman, and recusal was unwarranted.
The Hupps appealed the dismissal; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment.
The Ninth Circuit also held it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s own order labeling the Hupps vexatious because the Hupps did not file a proper separate or amended notice of appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether private defendants acted under color of state law for § 1983	Private actors’ conduct supported a § 1983 claim	Private parties did not act under color of state law	Court: Dismissed § 1983 claims against private defendants — no state action shown
Whether Huntsman’s conduct in state litigation violated § 1983	Huntsman’s actions violated constitutional rights	Hupps failed to plead facts showing a constitutional violation	Court: Dismissed — insufficient facts to state § 1983 claim against Huntsman
Whether Judge Molloy is liable for damages for official acts	Judges’ actions were unconstitutional and damages are appropriate	Judges are absolutely immune for acts in judicial capacity	Court: Dismissed damages claims — judge entitled to absolute judicial immunity
Whether injunctive or declaratory relief against state judges is available	Seek injunctive/declaratory relief to challenge state-court process and appointments	Relief is barred/or unavailable (Eleventh Amendment, no prior declaratory relief)	Court: Dismissed injunctive claims (no prior declaratory decree) and declaratory claims (Eleventh Amendment bar)
Whether challenge to California vexatious litigant statute is cognizable	Statute is unconstitutional and federal court may decide	Claim is inextricably intertwined with state-court judgment; Rooker–Feldman bars review	Court: Dismissed under Rooker–Feldman as inextricably intertwined
Whether district judges should be disqualified/recused	Judges should be disqualified for alleged bias or misconduct	No grounds shown for recusal	Court: Denied recusal — no abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Dexter v. Colvin, 731 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard of de novo review cited)
Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702 (9th Cir. 1991) (private-party conduct generally not state action for § 1983)
Lopez v. Dep’t of Health Servs., 939 F.2d 881 (9th Cir. 1991) (elements required to state a § 1983 claim)
Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir. 1986) (judicial absolute immunity for official acts)
Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1985) (Eleventh Amendment bars certain retrospective relief against states)
Doe & Assocs. Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2001) (Rooker–Feldman bars federal review of claims inextricably intertwined with state-court judgments)
United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2010) (standards governing recusal and review)
Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572 (9th Cir. 2007) (appeal jurisdiction requires proper notice of appeal)
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (issues not raised in opening brief or raised first on appeal are not considered)