NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 4 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK DARULIS, No. 16-55328
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00864-CAB-BGS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SAN DIEGO POLICE OFFICER GOTTS
#6836; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Mark Darulis appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims against judicial officers arising
out of state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Mullis v. U.S. Bankr.
*
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).
Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Darulis’s claims against defendant
Miesfeld (erroneously sued as “Miefeld”) on the basis of judicial immunity
because the challenged action was taken in Miesfeld’s judicial capacity. See
Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that
judges are immune from suit for money damages for judicial acts and setting forth
factors “relevant to the determination of whether a particular act is judicial in
nature”); Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 830 (9th Cir. 1995) (judicial
immunity applies to municipal court commissioner).
The district court properly dismissed Darulis’s claims against defendant
Banks on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity because the challenged actions were
“an integral part of the judicial process.” Mullis, 828 F.2d at 1390; see Duvall, 260
F.3d at 1133.
Defendants Miesfeld’s and Banks’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket
Entry No. 9) is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-55328