Raymond Conroy v. Michael Gordon

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
JUL 20 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND J. CONROY, No. 19-16057
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02626-GMS-
DMF
v.
MICHAEL D. GORDON, Judge of the MEMORANDUM*
Superior Court at Maricopa County; STATE
OF ARIZONA,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 14, 2020**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Raymond J. Conroy appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of due process and his
right to counsel. 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. Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 749-50 (9th Cir. 2009)
(Eleventh Amendment 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 Conroy’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)).
AFFIRMED.
2 19-16057