From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dettamanti v. Staffel

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feb 10, 2020
No. 19-55272 (9th Cir. Feb. 10, 2020)

Opinion

No. 19-55272

02-10-2020

ANGELINA DETTAMANTI, Individually and as former Trustee of the Carrari Family Trust, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TIMOTHY J. STAFFEL, individually and in his official capacity as Judicial Officer of Santa Barbara Superior Court, et al. Defendants-Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01230-CBM-PLA MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996) (judicial immunity extends to declaratory and other equitable relief), superseded by statute on other grounds.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.


Summaries of

Dettamanti v. Staffel

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feb 10, 2020
No. 19-55272 (9th Cir. Feb. 10, 2020)
Case details for

Dettamanti v. Staffel

Case Details

Full title:ANGELINA DETTAMANTI, Individually and as former Trustee of the Carrari…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Feb 10, 2020

Citations

No. 19-55272 (9th Cir. Feb. 10, 2020)

Citing Cases

Sanders v. City of Erie

And even if prospective relief were conceivably available, Sanders' claim would be barred by Eleventh…

Acres v. Marston

For that reason, the court concluded, "we therefore must agree that ‘for purposes of absolute judicial…