Case ID: f-appx_33/html/0345-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dolly G. TETERS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CITY OF ALHAMBRA, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 01-56777.
    D.C. No. CV-99-11968-CRM.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 8, 2002.
    Decided April 17, 2002.
    Before BROWNING, KLEINFELD and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Teters’s request for oral argument is denied, because this panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dolly G. Teters appeals pro se the district court’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal with prejudice of her First Amended Complaint against the City of Alhambra. The district court correctly determined that the City is immune from liability for Teters’s claims. Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831, 840 (9th Cir.1996); Cal. Gov’t Code § 815.2(b). We reject Teters’s remaining contentions, including her bias contentions against the district court judges, Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554-55, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994), because they lack merit.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.