Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03873/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03873-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tu D. Lu
Plaintiff
Mark A. Talamantes
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TU D. LU,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JUDGE MARK A. TALAMANTES,

Defendant. /

No. C 16-03873 WHA

ORDER DENYING

MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO AMEND AND

DISMISSING CASE

An order adopted the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Maria Elena

James dismissing pro se plaintiff Tu D. Lu’s complaint (Dkt. Nos. 6, 10). The order allowed

Lu to seek leave to amend. Lu filed a “Motion to Amend Claims in Complying with the

Court’s Order,” but failed to address the issues set forth in the report and recommendation

(Dkt. No. 11). 

Construing the motion as a proposed amended complaint, it still suffers from the same

deficiencies. To the extent Lu’s claims are directed at Judge Talamantes, they are barred by

absolute immunity. See Chavez v. Robinson, 817 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir. 2016) as amended

on reh’g (Apr. 15, 2016). To the extent Lu’s claims are a de facto appeal of Judge Talamantes’s

decision, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Maldando v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945,

949 (9th Cir. 2004).

Case 3:16-cv-03873-WHA Document 12 Filed 09/02/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is DENIED, and the case is hereby DISMISSED. 

Judgment will follow. The Clerk shall please CLOSE THE FILE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2016 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-03873-WHA Document 12 Filed 09/02/16 Page 2 of 2