Court Opinion

ID: 9956647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 18:00:40.658955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:42.826546
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           APR 2 2024
                                                                          MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                           U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SYMON MANDAWALA,                                   No. 23-35345

                 Plaintiff-Appellant,              D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01179-RAJ

  v.
                                                   MEMORANDUM*
ERA LIVING LLC,

                 Defendant-Appellee.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Western District of Washington
                    Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

       Symon Mandawala appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his federal civil rights action alleging that defendant, its attorney in

prior state court litigation, and a state court judge, conspired to violate his rights.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a sua sponte

       *
             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). Mandawala’s request for
oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
dismissal for failure to state a claim. Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986,

991 (9th Cir. 1987). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record.

Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

      To the extent Mandawala alleged claims against a state court judge, the

district court properly dismissed the claims as barred by judicial immunity. See

Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (describing

factors relevant to the determination of whether an act is judicial in nature and

subject to absolute judicial immunity).

      To the extent Mandawala alleged claims against defendant and its attorney,

dismissal of the claims was proper because Mandawala failed to allege facts

sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009) (explaining that, to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                      23-35345