Court Opinion

ID: 9389996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 17:01:12.225587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:31.023982
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 26 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY K. ANDERSON,                            No.    22-16611

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00127-ART-BNW

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
STATE OF NEVADA; CHARLES
THOMPSON,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Nevada
                    Anne R. Traum, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before:      CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Nevada state prisoner Anthony K. Anderson appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional

claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brown

v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 749-50 (9th Cir. 2009) (Eleventh Amendment

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
immunity); Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1077 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006) (judicial

immunity); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (failure to state a

claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Anderson’s action because defendants

are immune from suit. See Brown, 554 F.3d at 752 (explaining that the State has

Eleventh Amendment immunity); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th

Cir. 1986) (a judge is subject to liability only when “he acts in the clear absence of

all jurisdiction, or performs an act that is not judicial in nature” (citations and

internal quotation marks omitted)).

      Anderson’s motions for injunctive relief (Docket Entry No. 3), appointment

of pro bono counsel (Docket Entry No. 4), default judgment (Docket Entry No. 5)

and presentation of forensic evidence (Docket Entry No. 11) are denied.

      Anderson’s motion to file an oversized brief (Docket Entry No. 7) is denied

as unnecessary.

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                     22-16611