LOPEZ v. RAMIREZ (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Arthur Lopez appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that a California court rule violated his due process rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Jachetta v. United States, 653 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lopez's action because defendants are entitled to immunity, and to the extent Lopez seeks injunctive relief, his action is barred by the Younger abstention doctrine. See Simmons v. Sacramento Cty. Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (state courts, as an arm of state government, have Eleventh Amendment immunity); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (judges are absolutely immune from damage liability for acts performed in their official capacities); see also Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971) (recognizing the longstanding public policy against federal court interference with state court proceedings).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for dismissing without leave to amend).

Lopez's motion for extension of time to file a supplemental reply brief (Docket Entry No. 26) is denied.

AFFIRMED.