N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT PHILIP C . B IKLE, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. TR AFFIC SUPER

VISOR M AR THA, in he r individual c a

p a c ity ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-56504 D.C . No. 8:13-c v-00911-DOC -JPR M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Dav id O. C arte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 22, 2015 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, GR AB ER , a nd W . FLETC H ER , C irc uit Judge s . Philip C . B ikle a

ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his a c tion a lle ging fe de ra l and sta te la w c la im s a

rising out of the

issua nc e of a tra ffic c ita

tion. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo, 

# F IL ED JUL 01 2015 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).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 )), a nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d B ikle ’ s a c tion be c a use de fe nda

nts a re e ntitle d to judic ia l a

nd qua si-judic ia l im

m unity . Se eFranc e

s c hi v . Sc h w artz , 57 F.3d 828, 830-31 (9th C ir. 1995) (c om m i ssione r wa s e ntitle d

to judic ia l im

m unity from dam a g e s lia

bility for c la im s a

rising out of the issua

nc e of a be nc h wa

rrant a nd se tting bail); Mullis v . U.S. Bank r. C ourt , 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th C ir. 1987) (c ourt c le rks a

re e ntitle d to a

bsolutequa si-judic ia l im

m unity from dam a ge s c la im s whe n the y

pe rform ta sks inte gra l to thejudic ia l proc e ss); Ashe lman v . Pope , 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th C ir. 1986) (e n ba nc ) (judge s a

re e ntitle d to a

bsolutejudic ia l im m unity from a dam a ge s a c t ion a

rising out of judic ia l a c ts). C ontra ry to B ikle ’ s c onte ntions, de fe nda nts did not ac t in c o m

ple te a b se nc e of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion. S e e C a l. Pe n a l C ode § 959.1(c )(1) (authoriz ing the e le c tronic filing of a

n a c c usatory

ple a d ing by “ a

c le rk of the c ourt with re spe c t to c om pla i nts issue d for the offe nse of fa ilure to a ppe ar, pa y a fine , or c om

ply with a n orde r of the c ourt” ); S

te e n v . Appe llate

Div ., Supe rior C

ourt , 331 P.3d 136, 139-42 (C a l. 2014) (thepra c tic e of a uthoriz ing c ourt c le rks to issuec om pla ints under C a l. Pe na l C ode § 959.1(c )(1) doe s not viola te se pa ration of powe rs). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

dism i ssing B ikle ’ s a c tion 2 1 3 - 5 6 5 0 4without le ave to a m e nd be c a

use am e ndm e nt would ha ve be e n futile . Se eLope

z v . Smith , 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th C ir. 2000) (e n ba nc ) (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re vie w). B ikle ’ s c onte ntion tha

t the distric t c o urt e rre d in fa iling to hold a n e vide ntia ry he a ring on theva lidity

of the notic e to a

ppe ar is unpe rsua sive . W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or a

rgum e nts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se ePadge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM E D.

3 1 3 - 5 6 5 0 4