DETTAMANTI v. STAFFEL (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Angelina Dettamanti appeals from the district court's order denying injunctive relief and dismissing sua sponte her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of injunctive and de novo interpretation of the underlying legal principles. Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Dettamanti's motion for injunctive relief and dismissed her claims against Judge Staffel in his individual capacity on the basis of judicial immunity because Dettamanti failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Judge Staffel 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); see also Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996) (judicial immunity extends to declaratory and other equitable relief), superseded by statute on other grounds.

The district court properly denied Dettamanti's motion for injunctive relief and dismissed her claims against Judge Staffel in his official capacity on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 824-25 (9th Cir. 2007) (state officials sued in their official capacities are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity).

AFFIRMED.