Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
William H. GILLIAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kathleen N.A. WATANABE, The Hon., in her official capacity as Judge of the Fifth Circuit Court; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
William H. Gilliam appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that improper decisions were made in a state court action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal based on judicial immunity. Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1077 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gilliam's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against Judge Watanabe because Gilliam failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for such relief. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (barring injunctive relief against judicial officers for their judicial conduct “unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable”); Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 67-69, 106 S.Ct. 423, 88 L.Ed.2d 371 (1985) (distinguishing claims for prospective and retrospective relief and explaining that claims for retrospective relief are barred by the Eleventh Amendment).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Gilliam's complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, 656 F.3d 1034, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court may deny leave to amend if amendment would be futile).
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).
Appellees’ motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 8) and Gilliam's motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 22) are denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-16939
Decided: September 21, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)