Alfriend v. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAR 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
KIMBERLY JANE ALFRIEND; et al., No. 14-15347
Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05046-DWM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
JOSE J. GARCIA; et al., No. 14-15349
Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 4:12-cv-04504-DWM
v.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Donald W. Molloy, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 17, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: BYBEE and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges and HELLERSTEIN,*** Senior
District Judge.
The only claims surviving on appeal are against the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California and its judges (collectively “Federal
Defendants”).1 The district court dismissed these claims on the basis of sovereign
immunity.
Federal Defendants have sovereign and judicial immunity.2 See Block v.
North Dakota, ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273, 287 (1983) (“The
basic rule of federal sovereign immunity is that the United States cannot be sued at
all without the consent of Congress.”); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355–56
(1978) (finding that judges have judicial immunity and “are not liable to civil
actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their
jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly”) (internal
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
1
Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the other defendants and their motion was
granted.
2
Federal Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.
quotation marks omitted). “Any waiver of immunity must be ‘unequivocally
expressed,’ and any limitations and conditions upon the waiver ‘must be strictly
observed and exceptions thereto are not to be implied.’” Hodge v. Dalton, 107 F.3d
705, 707 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 160–61
(1981)). Because Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Federal Defendants waived
either sovereign or judicial immunity, we do not have jurisdiction to review
Plaintiffs’ appeal.
DISMISSED.