James O. Molen v. UNITED STATES 9TH DISTRICT COURT, Eastern District of California;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES O. MOLEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES 9TH DISTRICT
COURT, Eastern District of California; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-16291
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02224-JAM-
CMK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
James O. Molen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
* 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 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-16291
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Molen’s action because defendants are
protected by judicial immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)
(discussing judicial immunity and its limited exceptions); Mullis v. U.S. Bankr.
Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that court clerks have absolute
quasi-judicial immunity for performing, or failing to perform, tasks integral to the
judicial process).
We reject as unsupported by the record Molen’s contentions that the
magistrate and district judges engaged in misconduct.
Molen’s motions and requests, set forth in the opening brief, are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --