Yang Goo v. Maria Rullo ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YANG MO GOO, No. 22-55399
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:22-cv-00341-JLS-DFM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MARIA RULLO,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Yang Mo Goo appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying Goo’s
request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissing Goo’s action alleging
federal law violations by a state court judge pro tempore. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of an IFP
*
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).
request. Rodriguez v. Steck, 795 F.3d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2015) (order). We
review de novo a determination of judicial immunity. Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d
1076, 1077 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The district court properly denied Goo’s request to proceed IFP and
dismissed Goo’s action as barred by absolute immunity. See Ashelman v. Pope,
793 F.2d 1072, 1075-78 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (“Judges and those performing
judge-like functions are absolutely immune from damage liability for acts
performed in their official capacities.”); 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).
Because Goo has paid the required filing fee on appeal, Goo’s motion to
proceed IFP on appeal (Docket Entry No. 6) is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
2 22-55399