Case ID: f-appx_708/html/0415-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles G. KINNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Philip GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-56750
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017
    
    Filed December 28, 2017
    
      Charles G. Kinney, Pro Se
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Kinney’s request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Charles G. Kinney appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action seeking a declaratory judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal on the basis of judicial immunity. Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kinney’s claims against Judge Gutierrez on the basis of judicial immunity. See Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (describing factors relevant to whether an act is judicial in nature and subject to judicial immunity). Contrary to Kinney’s contention, Judge Gutierrez was not acting in a ministerial or administrative capacity when he issued the remand orders.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend, is proper when amendment would be futile).

We reject as unsupported by the record Kinney’s contention that the district judge was biased.

We do not consider 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,