NOT ICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS D IVISION O NE

J USTIN DWAYNE HILL , Plaintiff/Appellant ,

v.

FR ANK W. MOSKOWITZ , Defendant/Appellee

. No. 1 CA- CV 21 -0371

A ppeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2020-003878 The Honorable Margaret R. Mahoney , Judge

AFFIRMED

APPEARANCES Justin Dwayne Hill , Tucson Plaintiff/ Appellant

A rizona Attorney General’s Office , Phoenix By Kimberly D. Chamberlain C ounsel for Defendant/Appellee

M EMORANDUM DECISION
Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the c ourt, in which Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Angela K. Paton joined. FILED 3-8-2022HILL v. MOSKOWITZ Decision of the Court

2 G A S S , Vice Chief Judge:
¶1 Justin Dwayne Hill appeals the dismissal of his complaint against Judge Frank W. Moskowitz. Because the superior cour t properly applied judicial immunity , we affirm. ¶2 Judge Moskowitz presided ove r Hill’s criminal jury trial

. During the trial, Hill told his attorney he had chest pains. Hill’s attorney then told the j udge but did not ask to continue the trial. The j udge sa id unless Hill could not proceed , the trial would go on

. A short while later , Hill collapsed. The j udge adjourned the trial so Hill could receive medical

care. ¶3 Hill sued the judge for negligence, intentional emotional distress, and constitutional violations. The judge moved to dismiss , arguing judicial immunity and Hill ’s failure to comply with the notice

- of

- claim statute

. The superior court granted th e motion under judicial immunity and did not reach the notice

- of

- claim issue

. Hill timely appeal ed

. This court has jurisdiction under article VI, section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12

- 120.21.A.1 and 12

- 2101.A.1. ¶4 The j udge argues the court properly dismissed Hill’s case because judicial immunity protected the j udge’s ru ling to proceed with the trial, a judicial act. We agree. ¶5 This court review s de novo the dismissal of a complaint under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Coleman v. City of Mesa , 230 Ariz. 352, 355 , ¶ 7 (2012). This court assumes the truth of well

- pleaded factual allegations and may look at any referenced exhibits of public records. Id. at 356, ¶ 9. This court uphold s a dismissal only if Hill is not “ entitled to reli ef under any interpretation of the facts

. ” Fid. Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Ins. , 191 Ariz. 222, 224 , ¶ 4 (1998). ¶6 Judicial immunity protects judges from civil suit s for their judicial acts. Acevedo v. Pima Cnty

. Adult Prob. De p’t , 142 Ariz. 319, 321 (1984). Judicial immunity ensures judges “exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences.” Id

. Plaintiffs can
overcome judicial immunity if the judge does not act within the judge’s judicial power or acts outside the judge’s jurisdiction. Mireles v. Waco , 502 U.S. 9, 11

– 12 (1991) (citations omitted) ; see also Acevedo , 142 Ariz. at 322

. ¶7 Without citing any authority, Hill argu es judicial immunity does not control because the j udge made a medical, not a judicial, decision

. Judges , however, make these decision s during trials because they areHILL v. MOSKOWITZ Decision of the Court

3 charged with ensuring the orderly conduct of proceedings

. See In re Alexander , 232 Ariz. 1, 11 , ¶ 42 (201 3 ) (citation omitted). Here, the judge’s decision to recess or not fell squarely within his judicial authority. ¶8 Hill mentions a jurisdictional issue. He does not develop this argument, so we do not address it. See MacMillan v. Schwartz , 226 Ariz. 584, 591, ¶ 33 (App. 2011 )

. ¶9 W e affirm.