YI TAI SHAO, AKA Linda Yi Tai Shao, as a proxy for classes to be certified under… v. Tsan-Kuen Wang;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YI TAI SHAO, AKA Linda Yi Tai Shao, as
a proxy for classes to be certified under
Counts X, XI, XXIV, the class to be
certified under Count XI, the class to be
certified under Count XXIV, the class to be
certified under Count XXVI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TSAN-KUEN WANG; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-16817
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01912-WBS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Yi Tai Shao, AKA Linda Yi Tai Shao, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging various federal and state law
* 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
DEC 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-16817
claims stemming from state-court custody proceedings. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure
to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), and for judgment on the pleadings under
Rule 12(c). Arrington v. Wong, 237 F.3d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Shao’s claims against defendants who
are judges as barred by judicial immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 10-12
(1991) (per curiam) (the only exceptions to judicial immunity are if the actions
were not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity or if there is a complete absence of
jurisdiction); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc)
(judges are immune from suit for acts performed in their official capacity); see also
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (barring injunctive relief against a judicial officer “unless a
declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable”).
The district court properly dismissed Shao’s federal claims against the
Attorney General of California on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity.
See Seven Up Pete Venture v. Schweitzer, 523 F.3d 948, 952-53 (9th Cir. 2008)
(describing Eleventh Amendment immunity and the Ex Parte Young exception);
Snoeck v. Brussa, 153 F.3d 984, 986-987 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[A] generalized duty to

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-16817
enforce state law or general supervisory power over the persons responsible for
enforcing the challenged provision will not subject an official to suit.” (internal
citation and quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Shao’s complaint
without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Serra v. Lappin,
600 F.3d 1191, 1195, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009);
Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by
argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived).
We do not consider documents and facts that were not presented to the
district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --