Michael Coulter v. Michael Roddy
Michael R. COULTER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Michael M. RODDY, Defendant—Appellee
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Alfred T. Goodwin (author), William T. Wallace, Mary M. McKeown
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL R. COULTER, No. 11-55518 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00102-IEG-NLS v. MEMORANDUM * MICHAEL M. RODDY, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 19, 2011 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Michael Coulter appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Michael Roddy, the Executive Officer for the Superior Court of California, San Diego. Coulter alleges that Roddy directed the Deputy Clerks of the San Diego County Superior Court to “improperly and * 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). illegally deny filing” of outdated Judicial Council forms. As a result the Deputy Clerks rejected and refused to file requests for dismissal of a civil action based upon Roddy’s directive.
We agree with the district court that the alleged actions fall within the scope of the Clerk of the Court's duties that are an integral part of the judicial process.
Accordingly, the district court did not err by dismissing the complaint. See Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987) (explaining that court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights violations when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process).
AFFIRMED.