Ali Shahrokhi, on behalf of B. E. S. v. Dawn Throne; Elizabeth Scheinman; Azucena Zavala

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALI SHAHROKHI, on behalf of B. E. S.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAWN THRONE; ELIZABETH
SCHEINMAN; AZUCENA ZAVALA,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-15978
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00001-JAD-VCF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 10, 2023 **
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Ali Shahrokhi appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims related to a family court
proceeding, and entry of a vexatious litigant and pre-filing order. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal based on
* 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).
FILED
OCT 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-15978
absolute judicial or quasi-judicial immunity. Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240,
1243 (9th Cir. 1996), superseded by statute on other grounds. We review for an
abuse of discretion an imposition of a vexatious litigant order. Ringgold-Lockhart
v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Shahrokhi’s action because defendants
are entitled to absolute judicial and quasi-judicial immunity. See Ashelman v.
Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (judges are entitled to
absolute judicial immunity for acts performed in their official capacity); Moore, 96
F.3d at 1244 (court employees performing quasi-judicial functions are entitled to
absolute immunity).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring Shahrokhi to be a
vexatious litigant and entering a pre-filing review order against him after providing
notice and an opportunity to be heard, developing an adequate record for review,
making substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of Shahrokhi’s
conduct, and narrowly tailoring the order to prevent abusive litigation. See Molski
v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth
the procedural and substantive standards for imposing a pre-filing restriction on a
vexatious litigant). Contrary to Shahrokhi’s contention, the district court had
jurisdiction to enter the pre-filing order. See Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1062
n.2 (filing of notice of appeal does not divest district court of jurisdiction to enter a

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-15978
vexatious litigant order).
Shahrokhi’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 25) is granted.
All other pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --