N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
YVETTE C ASTANEDA, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. M AR GARET B UR TON-C A HILL, in he r offic ia l c a pa c ity a s Justic e of the Pe a c e , AKA M e g B urton-Ha ll; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-15159 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-01856-SR B
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Susa n R . B olton, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2014 ** B e fore : LEAVY, FISHER , a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Yve tte C a s ta

ne da a ppe a l s pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism issing her 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging fe de ra l a nd sta te la w c la i m s arising from

a sta te c o urt proc e e ding re late d to he r dog. W e have jurisdic tion 

# FIL ED DEC 4 2014 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 9th C ir. R . 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo. Sadosk i v . Mosle y , 435 F.3d 1076, 1077 n.1 (9th C ir. 2006) (dismissa l unde r Fe d. R
. C iv. P. 12(b)(6)); Barre n v . Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th C ir. 1998) (orde r) (dism issa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e )(2)(B )). W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d C a sta

ne da ’ s fe de ra l a

nd sta te la w c la im s a ga inst de fe n da

nt s B urton-C ahill a

n d Ore be c a

use the y are e ntitle d to judic ia l im

m unity unde r fe de ra l and Ariz ona la w. Se eAshe lman v . Pope , 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th C ir. 1986) (e n ba nc ) (“ Judge s a

nd thosepe rform ing judge -like func tions a

re a bsolute l y im m une from dam a ge lia

bility for a c ts pe rform e d in the ir offic ia l c a pa c itie s.” ); Ac e v e do v . Pima C n ty . Adult Prob. De

p ’t. , 690 P.2d 38, 40 (Ariz
. 1984) (se tting forth the doc trine of a

b solutejudic ia l im

m unity in Ariz ona ); He rnande z v . Maric opa C

ounty , 673 P.2d 341, 343 (Ariz . C t . App. 1983) (justic e s of the pe a c e are e ntitle d to judic ia l im m unity). M ore ove r, C a s ta

ne da fa ile d to
a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t B urton-C ahill a

nd Ore a c te d in thec le ar a bse nc e of a ll jurisdic tion. S

e e O’N e il v . C ity of Lak eOsw e go , 642 F.2d 367, 369-70 (9th C ir. 1981) (disc ussing thedistinc tion be twe e n a c ts ta ke n “ in c le ar a

bse nc e of a ll jurisdic tion” and thoseta ke n m e re ly

“ in e xc e ss of jurisdic tion” ); In re Ale x ande r , 300 P.3d 536, 546 (Ariz . 2013) (“ A judge lose s [] im m unity only

whe n a c ting in a non-judic ia l c a

p a c ity or in c om

ple te a bse nc e of a ll jurisdic tion.” ).

1 3
- 1 5 1 5 9 2The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d C a sta

ne da ’ s fe de ra l c la im s a ga i nst de fe nda nt Hunte r be c a

use C a s ta ne da fa ile d to a lle ge fa c t s suffic ie nt to show tha t Hunte r a c te d unde r c olor of sta te la w. Se eSimmons v
. Sac rame n to C nty . Supe rior C ourt , 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th C ir. 2003) (priva te pa rtie s do not gene ra lly

a c t unde r c olor of sta

t e la w for 42 U.S.C . § 1983 purpose s, a nd c onc l usory

a lle gations that a priva te pa rty c onspire d

with a sta te a c tor to deprive pla i ntiff of c onstitutiona l rights a re insuffic ie nt to sta

te a c la i m ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de c lining to e xe rc i se supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r C a sta ne da ’ s re m a ining sta

te la w c l a im s a ga inst Hunte r. Se e 28 U.S.C
. § 1367(c )(3) (a distric t c o urt m ay de c line to e xe rc i se supple m e nta l jurisdic tion onc e it ha s “ dism isse d a ll c la im s ove r whic h it ha s origina l jurisdic tion” ). W e re je c t a s without me rit C a sta ne da ’ s c o nte ntion tha

t the distric t c ourt pre m ature ly

dismisse d

C a sta ne da ’ s c la im s a ga inst B urton-C ahill a nd Hunte r be fore the y we re se rve d. Se e28 U.S.C . § 1915(e )(2)(B ) (c ourt sha ll dismi ss a t a ny tim e if it de te rm i ne s tha

t the a c t ion fa ils to sta

te a c la im on whic h re lie f m a

y be grante d or that the a c tion se e ks m o n e ta

ry re lie f from

a de fe nda nt who is im

m une ). AFFIRM E D
.

1 3
- 1 5 1 5 9 3