Walter Shane Langston v. JOSEPH ORR, Superior Court Judge

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER SHANE LANGSTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH ORR, Superior Court Judge,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-17741
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01625-JAM-
JFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2014**
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Walter Shane Langston appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due
process violations arising from his state court criminal action over which defendant
Judge Orr presided. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
FILED
APR 14 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Langston’s claims for damages against
Judge Orr in his official capacity as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Flint
v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 824-25 (9th Cir. 2007) (state officials sued for damages
in their official capacities are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity).
The district court properly dismissed Langston’s claims against Judge Orr in
his individual capacity on the basis of judicial immunity because Langston failed
to allege facts showing that Judge Orr took nonjudicial actions against him, or that
Judge Orr’s judicial actions were taken in complete absence of all jurisdiction. See
Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that
“[a] judge is not deprived of immunity because he takes actions which are in error
. . . or are in excess of his authority[,]” and setting forth the two exceptions to
judicial immunity); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075-76, 78 (9th Cir. 1986)
(setting forth the factors to consider when determining whether a given action is
judicial in nature and concluding that judicial immunity is a defense so long as “the
judge’s ultimate acts are judicial actions taken within the court’s subject matter
jurisdiction”).
12-17741 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Langston’s reliance on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 and Federal Rule
of Criminal Procedure 11 is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
12-17741 3

-- 3 of 3 --