NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JONATHAN D. COBB, Sr., No. 12-17613
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01372-JSW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jonathan D. Cobb, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging violations of California state law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir.
2010), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Cobb’s claims against the federal court
defendants because they are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. See Mullis v.
U.S. Bankr. Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Court clerks have
absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages . . . when they perform tasks that
are an integral part of the judicial process” unless they acted “in the clear absence
of all jurisdiction.”); see also Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir.
1986) (en banc) (“[A]llegations that a conspiracy produced a certain decision
should no more pierce the actor’s immunity than allegations of bad faith, personal
interest or outright malevolence.”).
We reject Cobb’s contention that the court erred by dismissing the action
without first holding an evidentiary hearing as to whether the federal court
defendants acted within the scope of their employment.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
The federal court defendants’ request for judicial notice, filed on April 29,
2 12-17613
2013, is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-17613