FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 16 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL SANZARO, No. 13-15520
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01980-JCM-
PAL
v.
VALORIE J. VEGA; PHILIP M. PRO, MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Michael Sanzaro appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Judges Vega and Pro violated
his constitutional rights by ruling against him in his prior actions. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.
1998) (order). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Thompson
v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm in part and dismiss in
part.
After the district court entered judgment, the Nevada Supreme Court
reversed Judge Vega’s order confirming the arbitration award against Sanzaro and
remanded with instructions to vacate the award. See Sanzaro v. Ardiente
Homeowners Ass’n, No. 61288, 2015 WL 6163900 (Nev. Oct. 16, 2015). We
therefore dismiss as moot Sanzaro’s claims seeking declaratory and injunctive
relief voiding that order. See Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506
U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (“[I]f an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that
makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a
prevailing party, the appeal must be dismissed.” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed without leave to amend Sanzaro’s
claims seeking damages and additional injunctive relief against Judge Vega
because Judge Vega is immune from liability. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“[I]n any
action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such
officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory
2 13-15520
decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.”); Sadoski v. Mosley,
435 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2006) (judges are entitled to immunity for damages
for their judicial conduct except when acting “in the clear absence of all
jurisdiction” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (leave to amend should be
given unless the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment).
For the same reasons, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Sanzaro’s motions for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah
Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth
standard of review and grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)).
We reject Sanzaro’s contention that the district court violated his due
process rights.
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).
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-15520