Julia Rein; Richard Bryant v. Northwest Mortgage Group, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIA REIN; RICHARD BRYANT,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
NORTHWEST MORTGAGE GROUP,
INC.,
Defendant,
SAKAE SAMUEL SAKAI; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-35383
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-05125-RBL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Julia Rein and Richard Bryant appeal pro se from the district court’s
FILED
AUG 05 2016
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 --

judgment in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law violations
arising out of their prior state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.
2010) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med.,
363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment and determination of
immunity). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants
Washington Superior Court Judge Robert Lewis and his judicial assistant, Andrea
DeShiell, because they are entitled to absolute judicial immunity. See Ashelman v.
Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (explaining that
“[j]udges and those performing judge-like functions are absolutely immune from
damage liability for acts performed in their official capacities” and allegations of a
conspiracy to predetermine the outcome of a case does not pierce that immunity);
see also Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1244 (9th Cir. 1996) (court employees
performing quasi-judicial functions are entitled to absolute immunity).
The district court properly dismissed the § 1983 claims against defendant
attorney Sakae Samuel Sakai because plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to
show that Sakai is a state actor. See Simmons v. Sacramento Cty. Superior Court,
318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (conclusory allegations are insufficient to
14-35383 2

-- 2 of 3 --

show that a private party is a state actor for purposes of § 1983).
Appellants’ contentions that the district court improperly handled their
proposed amended complaint and was biased against them are without merit.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
DeShiell’s amended motion to supplement the record on appeal, filed on
September 30, 2014, is granted.
Appellants’ motion to dismiss, filed on December 3, 2014, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
14-35383 3

-- 3 of 3 --