Jesse Plasola v. State of California;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSE PLASOLA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-55246
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05592-JAK-PVC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Jesse Plasola appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of his state court divorce proceedings. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brown v. Cal.
Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 749-50 (9th Cir. 2009) (Eleventh Amendment
* 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
MAY 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-55246
immunity); Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1077 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006) (judicial
immunity); Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.3d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (sua
sponte dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Plasola’s claims against defendants
State of California and Santa Barbara Superior Court because these defendants are
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Simmons v. Sacramento County
Superior Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (state courts are “arms of the
state” entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57
F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The Eleventh Amendment bars suits which seek
either damages or injunctive relief against a state, an arm of the state, its
instrumentalities, or its agencies.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Plasola’s claims against defendants
Timothy Staffel and Jed Beebe because these defendants are entitled to judicial
immunity. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 1986) (en
banc) (judges are immune from suit when performing judicial acts).
The district court properly dismissed Plasola’s claims against defendant
Roger Hubbard because he is not a state actor under § 1983. See Simmons, 318
F.3d at 1161 (a lawyer in private practice does not act under color of state law
under § 1983).
The State of California’s request for summary affirmance, set forth in its

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-55246
answering brief, is denied as moot.
Plasola’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 41) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --