547 F. App'x 826
9th Cir.2013Background
- Moore, a pro se plaintiff, appeals the dismissal of her federal complaint alleging misconduct by various government entities and employees related to divorce and child custody proceedings.
- The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim; Moore appeals the dismissal.
- The court applies de novo review to dismissals for failure to state a claim and must construe pro se pleadings liberally in Moore's favor.
- Judicial immunity bars claims against judges and court personnel acting within the judicial process.
- Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to state agencies; Monell governs municipal liability but Moore alleged no cognizable official policy or custom.
- The district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Moore's pendent state-law claims, after dismissing federal claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judges and court personnel are immune from suit. | Moore argues immunity should not bar her claims. | Judges and court personnel are immune for judicial acts within the court's jurisdiction. | Immunity proper; dismissals affirmed. |
| Whether Moore stated a constitutional deprivation by any remaining defendant. | Moore asserts violations of due process and discrimination claims. | No unconstitutional policy, no individual violation; Rooker-Feldman applies; allegations are threadbare. | No cognizable constitutional deprivation; claims inadequately pleaded; Rooker-Feldman bars de facto appeal. |
| Whether the district court properly declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims. | State claims should be heard in federal court. | Federal claims must be dismissed before addressing pendent state claims. | District court properly declined jurisdiction over state claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 F.3d 748 (U.S. Supreme Court 2005) (due process rights and third-party protection limits)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (local governments not liable under respondeat superior; liability for official policy or custom)
- Meek v. Cnty. of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 1999) (judicial immunity extends to court personnel who are integral to the judicial process)
- Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Court, 828 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1987) (immunity extends to actions of court personnel as part of judicial process)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (U.S. 1923) (limits federal jurisdiction over state-court losers alleging errors in state proceedings (Rooker-Feldman))