NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICIA A. GRANT, Ph.D., No. 16-35473
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01713-JLR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JAY WHITE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Patricia A. Grant appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of her
federal civil rights action as barred by judicial immunity and res judicata. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Ruiz v. Snohomish Cty.
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 824 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.
*
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).
The district court did not err in dismissing claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) because the judges and other defendants involved in the decision of
Grant’s prior state court case were protected by absolute judicial and quasi-judicial
immunity. See Burton v. Infinity Capital Mgmt., 862 F.3d 740, 747 (9th Cir. 2017)
(discussing judicial immunity); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.
2012) (setting forth standard for dismissal).
The federal claims asserted by Grant in this action were barred by res
judicata in light of her prior federal action asserting the same claims against the
same defendants. See Ruiz v. Snohomish Cty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 824 F.3d
1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2016). Grant’s state law claims against most of the
defendants were barred by the res judicata effect of her prior state court action. See
Gonzales v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 739 F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 2014); Williams v.
Leone & Keeble, Inc., 254 P.3d 818, 821 (Wash. 2011) (en banc). The district
court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over the remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c); Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en
banc).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Grant’s recusal
motion. See Glick v. Edwards, 803 F.3d 505, 508 (9th Cir. 2015); Blixseth v.
Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, 742 F.3d 1215, 1220 (9th Cir. 2014) (per
2
curiam) (stating that judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for
recusal).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3