Paul Hupp v. Jeffrey Freedman
Paul HUPP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeffrey Howard FREEDMAN, Individually and in His Official Capacity as “Pro Tem Administrative Law Judge”, Individually, Jointly, and Severally, Defendant-Appellee
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Atsushi W. Tashima (author), Sandra S. Ikuta, Susan Graber
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 14 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL HUPP, No. 12-55175 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-02337-IEG-RBB v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFREY HOWARD FREEDMAN, individually and in his official capacity as “Pro Tem Administrative Law Judge”, individually, jointly, and severally, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Irma E. Gonzalez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 7, 2014** Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Paul Hupp appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations and state law claims in * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). connection with the denial of his application for a temporary teaching permit. We review de novo. Sadosky v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1077 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hupp’s action because Freedman is entitled to judicial immunity. See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 923 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that judges functioning in their judicial capacities are generally entitled to judicial immunity and setting fourth factors for determining whether an official’s functions are quasi-judicial in nature); Hirsch v. Justices of the Supreme Court, 67 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curium)
(concluding that administrative law judges are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity);
O’Neil v. City of Lake Oswego, 642 F.2d 367, 368-70 (9th Cir. 1981) (extending judicial immunity to a pro tem judge and discussing the distinction between acts taken “in clear absence of all jurisdiction” and those taken merely “in excess of jurisdiction”).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-55175