Ahsan Mohiuddin v. Robert Higa , 682 F. App'x 610 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 16 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AHSAN MOHIUDDIN, No. 15-56018
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-03454-DDP-CW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT J. HIGA, an individual and Judge
California Superior Court; STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Ahsan Mohiuddin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging wrongdoing arising from an earlier
state court action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
*
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).
novo. Micomonaco v. Washington, 45 F.3d 316, 319 (9th Cir. 1995) (Eleventh
Amendment immunity); Crooks v. Maynard, 913 F.2d 699, 700 (9th Cir. 1990)
(judicial immunity). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Mohiuddin’s claims against the State
of California on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Porter v. Jones,
319 F.3d 483, 491 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The Eleventh Amendment erects a general bar
against federal lawsuits brought against a state.”); see also Krainski v. Nevada ex
rel. Bd. of Regents of Nevada System of Higher Educ., 616 F.3d 963, 967 (9th Cir.
2010) (Eleventh Amendment immunity applies regardless of the nature of relief
sought).
The district court properly dismissed Mohiuddin’s claims against Judge Higa
on the basis of judicial immunity because the claims arose out of Judge Higa’s
judicial acts. See Swift v. California, 384 F.3d 1184, 1188 (9th Cir. 2004) (“It is
well established that state judges are entitled to absolute immunity for their judicial
acts.”); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Judicial
immunity applies however erroneous the act may have been, and however
injurious in its consequences it may have proved to the plaintiff.” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)). We reject as without merit Mohiuddin’s
contentions that Judge Higa only answered the complaint in his official capacity.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mohiuddin’s
2 15-56018
motion to add CMRE Financial Services, Inc., as a defendant to the action because
the amendment would not have cured the deficiencies identified in Mohiuddin’s
complaint. See Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1078 (setting forth standard of review and
noting that a motion to amend a complaint is properly denied where the proposed
amendment could not overcome deficiencies identified by the court).
Mohiuddin’s request for production of extra-record materials (Docket Entry
No. 27) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-56018