Case Name: David VAN VELZER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roger L. HUNT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-03-20
Citations: 32 F. App'x 415
Docket Number: D.C. No. CV-01-00596-PMP; D.C. No. CV-01-00596-PMP
Parties: David VAN VELZER, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Roger L. HUNT, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 32
Pages: 415–416

Head Matter:
David VAN VELZER, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Roger L. HUNT, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 01-16806.
D.C. No. CV-01-00596-PMP.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 11, 2002.
Decided March 20, 2002.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding.
Before CANBY, BEEZER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner David Van Velzer, Jr., appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing his action against United States District Court Judge Roger L. Hunt. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim. Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1011 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
The district court properly granted Judge Hunt's motion to dismiss based on judicial immunity because Judge Hunt's actions in Van Velzer's criminal case were taken in furtherance of his judicial duties. See Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243-44 (9th Cir.1996).
Van Velzer's bias contention lacks merit because Judge Hunt's adverse rulings on Van Velzer's motions alone are insufficient to support a claim of bias or prejudice. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994).
We affirm the district court's dismissal of Van Velzer's motions for a declaratory-judgment.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.