Cecile Andrea Brown v. JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, U.S. District Court Judge; UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGES CHAMBERS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CECILE ANDREA BROWN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, U.S. District
Court Judge; UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGES CHAMBERS,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-35428
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00662-MJP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Cecile Andrea Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s order
dismissing her action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th
* 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
JUL 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-35428
Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Meek v. County of
Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1999) (dismissal on the basis of judicial
immunity). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Brown’s action because Judge
Coughenour is entitled to judicial immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-
12 (1991) (judicial immunity and its limited exceptions).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Brown’s motion for
reconsideration because Brown failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch.
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th
Cir. 1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).
No further filings will be entertained in this closed case.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --