Dana Webb v. MARK COPE, Honorable;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANA WEBB,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARK COPE, Honorable; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-57051
D.C. No. 5:10-cv-01533-UA-AGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Dana Webb appeals pro se the district court's order denying her request to
proceed in forma pauperis in her U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging civil rights
violations in connection with her divorce case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
FILED
DEC 20 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Minetti v. Port of Seattle,
152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam), and we affirm.
Webb sued Riverside Superior Court Judges Mark Cope and Rebecca
Dugan; the estate of Judge Ronald Heumann, formerly a Superior Court judge; and
Lori Hunt Kennedy, a former Commissioner in the family law court of Riverside
County. Webb alleged that the proceedings in her divorce case were
constitutionally flawed because of the “great probability of judicial bias.”
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Webb’s request to
proceed in forma pauperis because it appears from the face of the complaint that
defendants are entitled to absolute immunity. See id.; see also Romano v. Bible,
169 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --