NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KIMBALL CRAIG, No. 16-35444
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 6:16-cv-00513-AA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JORGE ALEJENDRO VILLICANA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Kimball Craig appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
12(b)(6), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Craig’s § 1983 claims against
defendants Villicana and Page because Craig failed to allege facts sufficient to
establish that their actions were fairly attributable to the state. See Collins v.
Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145, 1155 (9th Cir. 1989) (private party’s sworn complaint
that results in an arrest does not constitute state action); see also Dennis v. Sparks,
449 U.S. 24, 28 (1980) (“[M]erely resorting to the courts . . . does not make a party
a co-conspirator or a joint actor with the judge.”).
The district court properly dismissed Craig’s claims against Donahue, an
Oregon state judge, because Craig’s allegations pertained to Judge Donahue’s
judicial acts. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362-63 (1978) (judicial
immunity barred challenge to an order issued after ex parte proceedings without
notice to the affected party and without a hearing); 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other equitable relief), superseded by statute on other grounds.
We do not consider Craig’s constitutional challenge to Oregon’s Elderly
Persons and Persons with Disabilities Abuse Prevention Act because Craig failed
to present any argument in his opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983,
2 16-35444
985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (“This court will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal
that are not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in appellant’s opening
brief.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
3 16-35444