BROWN v. COUGHENOUR (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Cecile Andrea Brown appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing her action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1999) (dismissal on the basis of judicial immunity). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Brown's action because Judge Coughenour is entitled to judicial immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (judicial immunity and its limited exceptions).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Brown's motion for reconsideration because Brown failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

No further filings will be entertained in this closed case.

AFFIRMED.