T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T D A R R E L L J . M O O R E , S r ., P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. HO USI NG AU THORI TY OF THE C I TY O F L O S A N G E L E S ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 56543 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 7 - c v - 0 7 6 3 2 - G W - CW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia G e or ge H . W u, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d Jul y24, 2013 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , C L IF T O N , an dC A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D a rr e l l J . M oor e , S r . , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nt di s m i s s i ng hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng tha tde f e nda nt s c ons pi r e d a nd r e t a l i a t e d a ga i ns thi m f

orhi s a dvoc a c yon be ha l f of l ow - i nc om e t e na nt s . W e ha ve



# FI LED AU G 05 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 56543 2 ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . Kn i e v e l v . ES PN, 393 F .3 d1 0 6 8 , 1 0 7 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e a f f irm . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyd is m is s e dM o o r e ’s c la im s a g a in s t Ju d g e W h ite b e c au s e Ju d g e W h ite is im m u n e f r o m s u it f

o rd a m a g e s . See Mi re les v. W aco , 502 U . S . 9, 9, 11- 12 ( 1991) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( j udge s a r e abs olut e l yi m m une f r om s ui t s f

or dam ages base d o n thei r j ud i ci alcond uctexce ptw hen p er form i ng no nj ud i ci al f u n c tio n s o ra c tin g in th e c o m p le te ab s e n c e o f ju r is d ic tio n ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d is m is s in g w ith o u t le a v e to a m e nd be c aus e the de f

i c i e nc i e s i n M oor e ’ s c om pl a i ntc oul d notbe c ur e d by a m e n d m e n t. Se e L o

p ezv . Sm ith , 20 3 F . 3d 11 22 , 11 30 -31 (9th C i r. 20 00 ) ( en banc) ( s e tt i ng f orth s t a nda r d of

r e vi e w a nd e xpl a i ni ng tha tl e a ve t o a m e nd s houl d be gi ven u nl es s the defi ci enci es i n the com pl ai ntcann otbe cured by amend m ent ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g M o o r e ’s m o tio n to va c a t e the j udgm e ntbe c aus e M oor e ’ s f i l i ng of hi s not i c e of

appe a l di ve s t e d the d is tr ic t c o u rt o f

ju r is d ic tio n . Se e G ould v . Mutual L i f e I ns . C o. , 790 F . 2d 769, 771- 72 ( 9th C i r . 1986) ( s e tt i ng f orth s t a nda r d of

r e vi e w a nd e xpl a i ni ng tha tthe f i l i ng of an o tic e o f

ap p e a l d iv e s ts th e d is tr ic t c o u rt o f ju r is d ic tio n to c o n s id e ram o tio n to v a c a te th e ju d g m e n t) .11- 56543 3 M oor e ’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourttr e a t e d hi m unf a i r l yi s not s upport e d bythe r e c or d. W e d o n o t c o n s id e rm a tte r s r a is e df o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l. Se e P a d g e tt v . W r i ght , 5 8 7 F .3 d9 8 3 , 9 8 5 n .2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . AF F I RME D.