SING CHO NG v. BING KUNG BL ASSOCIATION UBI 601 677 293 UBI 601 858 308 (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Sing Cho Ng appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action concerning his eviction from a single room occupancy apartment in Seattle, Washington. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the claims against Judge Helson on the basis of judicial immunity because Ng failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Judge Helson acted “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or perform[ed] an act that [was] not judicial in nature.” Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining judicial immunity doctrine).

The district court properly dismissed the claims against Kirsten Grant on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity because Ng failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the tasks that Grant performed were not “an integral part of the judicial process.” Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Court for Dist. of Nev., 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987) (explaining quasi-judicial immunity doctrine).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Ng’s motion to supplement the record on appeal and for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied.

Ng’s motions to file a supplemental brief (Docket Entry Nos. 22, 23) are granted in part. The Clerk shall file Ng’s opening brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 18-1, and strike all other opening briefs, and file pages 592-627 of Docket Entry 15-2 as excerpts of record. The remainders of these motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.