Rune Kraft v. State of Arizona

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUNE KRAFT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF ARIZONA; JAMES P. BEENE;
ROBERT M. BRUTINEL; KENT E.
CATTANI; DAVID W. GARBARINO;
DAVID B. GASS; DOUGLAS GERLACH;
JOHN ROBERT LOPEZ IV; WILLIAM G.
MONTGOMERY; MICHAEL REAGAN;
DAVID D. WEINZWEIG; UNKNOWN
PARTIES, Named as Does 1-10,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-16403
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-02004-SPL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Rune Kraft appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action
* 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
JUN 28 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-16403
challenging state court decisions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal on the basis of judicial immunity.
Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Kraft’s action on the basis of judicial
immunity. See 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).
We reject as meritless Kraft’s contention that his due process rights were
violated.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Kraft’s motion for leave (Docket Entry No. 15) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --