Audrey L. Kimner v. Lucy H. Koh; Nathanael M. Cousins

21-16932Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJun 29, 2022

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AUDREY L. KIMNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LUCY H. KOH; NATHANAEL M.
COUSINS,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-16932
D.C. No. 5:21-cv-07107-EJD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Audrey L. Kimner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law violations
stemming from defendants’ dismissal of her lawsuit brought in 2019. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 29 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-16932
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Kimner’s action as barred by judicial
immunity. See Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001)
(describing factors relevant to the determination of whether an act is judicial in
nature and subject to absolute judicial immunity); Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d
1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996) (judicial immunity extends to declaratory and other
equitable relief), superseded by statute on other grounds.
We reject as unsupported by the record Kimner’s contentions that the district
court obstructed justice or otherwise acted unlawfully or unethically.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Kimner’s request for entry of default judgment (Docket Entry No. 5), is
denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.