Allen Joseph Bassel v. Robert E. Miles, individually

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
**
U.S.C. § 636(c).
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ALLEN JOSEPH BASSEL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT E. MILES, individually and in
his official capacity as Superior Court
Judge, Maricopa County, Arizona; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-16470
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02107-MHB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Michelle H. Burns, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted September 27, 2011***
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Allen Joseph Bassel appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
FILED
OCT 13 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-16470 2
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in
connection with state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003)
(Rooker-Feldman); Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1077 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006)
(judicial immunity). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record.
Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008).
We affirm.
To the extent that Bassel’s claims are based on the premise that the state
court decisions were erroneous, the district court properly dismissed the claims as
barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic
Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars “cases
brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court
judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting
district court review and rejection of those judgments”).
To the extent that Bassel’s claims are not barred under Rooker-Feldman,
defendants are immune from liability. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (barring injunctive
relief against judicial officers for their judicial conduct “unless a declaratory decree
was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable”); Sadoski, 435 F.3d at 1079
(judges are absolutely immune from suits for damages based on their judicial

-- 2 of 3 --

10-16470 3
conduct except when acting “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction” (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted)); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. City of Lodi, 302
F.3d 928, 957 n.27 (9th Cir. 2002) (“‘The Eleventh Amendment bars suits which
seek either damages or injunctive relief against a state . . . .’” (citation omitted)).
Bassel’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --