N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT VLADIK B YKOV,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. STEVEN G. R OSEN, a

nd his m arita l c om m unity ; e t a l ., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-35121 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-00713-JC C M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington John C . C o u ghe nour, Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d July

9, 2019 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd HAW K INS and M c K EOW N, C irc u it Judge s. Vla dik B ykov a

p p e a ls pro se from

the distric t

c ourt’ s orde rs de ny ing le ave to a m e nd, striking pa

rts of his Se c ond Am e nde d C om pla int, a n d de c lining supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r his re m a i ning sta te -lawc l a im s. W e hav e 

# FIL ED JUL 11 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wfor a buse of disc re tion a

distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to deny le ave to a m e n d, Hine

s v . Youse ff , 914 F.3d 1218, 1227 (9th C ir. 2019), strike

m atte r unde r R

u le 12(f), N

ursev . Unite d State

s , 226 F.3d 996, 1000 (9th C ir. 2000), a nd de c line jurisdic tion ove r supple m e nta l sta te -law c la im s onc e the fe de ra l c la im s have be e n dism i sse d, Tritc hle r v . C ty . of Lak e , 358 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th C ir. 2004). W e a ffirm . B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam i lia r with the h istory

of the c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it he re . I The R ook e r-Fe ldman doc trine doe s not ba r jurisdic tion be c a

use B y kov doe s not se e k to ove rturn or va c ate the sta te c ourt’ s orde rs. S

e e N o e l v . Hall , 341 F.3d 1148, 1162 (9th C ir. 2003) (e xpla ining tha t the Rook

e r-Fe ldman doc trine ba

rs jurisdic tion whe n a

“ pla i ntiff in fe de ra l distric t c o urt c o m pla ins of a

le ga l wrong a lle ge dly c o m m itte d by the sta t e c ourt, a nd se e ks re lie f from

the judge m e n t of tha

t c ourt” ). II The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng B ykov le ave to am e nd his disc rim ination c la im s unde r Title II of the Am e ric a ns with Disa

bilitie s Ac t of 1990 (“ ADA” ) and the W a shington La w Aga inst Disc rim ination (“ W LAD” ) a ga inst JudgeR o s e n a

nd Offic e r R oge rs be c a

use the y are prote c te d

by judic ia l a

nd 2qua si-judic ia l im m unity , re spe c tive ly . Se e Sw i ft v . C alifornia , 384 F.3d 1184, 1188 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ It is we ll e sta blishe d tha

t sta te judge s a

re e n title d to a

bsolute im m unity for the ir judic ia l a c ts.” ); Luthe ran Day C arev . Snohomish C

ty . , 829 P.2d 746, 750 (W a sh. 1992) (“ Q ua si-judic ia l im m unity atta c he s to pe rsons or e ntitie s who pe rform

func tions tha

t a re so c om p ara ble to thosepe rform e d

by judge s tha

t it is fe lt the y

should sha

re the judge 's a

bsoluteim

m unity while c arry ing out those func tions.” ). III The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng B ykov le ave to am e nd his c onstitutiona

l right-to-m e dic a l -priva c y c la im a ga i nst the C ity

of Se attle be c a use Judge R ose n a

nd Offic e r R oge rs a c t e d le ga l ly whe n the y

re que s te d B ykov’ s m e dic a l re c ords a nd orde re d tha

t he be inc arc e ra te d for fa ilure to c om ply . Se e Unite d State

s v . Lope z , 258 F.3d 1053, 1055–56 (9th C ir. 2001) (holding tha t a

“ c o ndition re quiring pa

rtic ipation in a

m e nta l he a lth progra

m is a routine . . . c ondition of supe

rvise d re le a se .” ); State

v . Be nne tt , 666 P.2d 390, 391 (W a sh. C t. App. 1983) (“ R e quiring a de fe nda nt to unde rgo psy c h iatric tre atm e nt is a c om m on c ondition of proba

tion a nd is ge ne ra lly

c onside re d to be re a s ona ble .” ). Thus, a

ny offic ia l polic y

or c ustom

re quiring suc h c o nduc t would a lso be pe rm issible .

IV 3The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng B ykov le ave to am e nd his disc rim ination c la im s unde r the ADA a nd W LAD a g a i nst the C ity of Se attle be c a

use any a l l e gation B ykov c ould m ake a l le ging disc rim ination would dire c tly c ontra dic t the judic ia lly -notic e d re c ords showing proba t iona ry m otive s on be ha lf of Judge R ose n a

nd Offic e r R oge rs—

not disc rim inat ory

one s. Se e Le adsinge r, Inc
. v . BMG Music Pub ., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th C i r. 2008) (holding that a c ourt m ay de ny

le ave to a

m e nd whe re am e ndm e n t would befutile ). V The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

striking c la im s in B ykov’ s Se c ond Am e nde d C om

pla int tha t c ontra ve ne d its pre vious orde r granting B ykov le ave to a m e nd a s long a s his a lle gations did not c ontra dic t the judic ia lly -notic e d re c o rds. Se e Sisk

iy ou Re g’l Educ . Proje c t v . U.S. Fore st Se rv . , 565 F.3d 545, 559–60 (9th C ir. 2009) (a ffirm ing de c ision to strike c la im s unde r R

ule 12(f) be c a use the y “ e xc e e de d the bounds of the lim ite d inte rve ntion gra

nte d” ). VI The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de c lining supple

m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r the re m a ining sta te -law c l a im s (le g a l m a lpra c tic e c l a im s) be c a use re solution of the se c la im s will pre dom inate ly involve the a pplic ation of sta

te la w. Se e C arne gie -Me llon Univ
. v . C

ohill , 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988) (“ [I] n the usua l

4c a se in whic h a ll fe de ra l-la

w c l a im s a

re e lim inate d be fore tria l, the ba la nc e of fa c t ors to be c o nside re d unde r the pe nde nt jurisdic tion doc trine

— judic ia l e c onom y , c onve nie nc e , fa irne ss, a nd c om ity

— will point towa

rd de c lining to e xe rc ise jurisdic tion ove r the re m a ining sta t e -law c la im s .” ).

AFFIRM E D.

5