Little v. Ambler

Full title: Derrick LITTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Read AMBLER; et al.…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 13, 2001

22 F. App'x 764 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

22 Fed.Appx. 764 (9th Cir. 2001) Derrick LITTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Read AMBLER; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-15542. D.C. No. CV-99-21088-RMW/PVT. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. November 13, 2001

Submitted November 5, 2001. ^*

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Little's motion for oral argument is denied.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Prisoner filed action against state superior court judge and court commissioner. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Ronald M. Whyte, J., dismissed complaint, and prisoner appealed. The Court of Appeals held that defendants were entitled to judicial immunity.

Affirmed.

Page 765.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding.

Before KLEINFELD, McKEOWN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Derrick Little appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his complaint without leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We review de novo the dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Little's action is precluded by judicial immunity because he is seeking relief based upon judicial actions taken by a California State Superior Court Judge and Court Commissioner in their official capacities. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.1986) (en banc).

Because the defendants' judicial immunity is fatal to Little's claim, amendment would have been futile and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend. Albrecht v. Lund, 845 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir.), amended by 856 F.2d 111 (9th Cir.1988).

Because Little failed to present any legal or factual basis for either of his motions for reconsideration, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions. De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 876, 121 S.Ct. 183, 148 L.Ed.2d 126 (2000).

Little's remaining contentions are without merit.

AFFIRMED.