United States v. 2020-02-10 | 19-55272 | ANGELINA DETTAMANTI V. TIMOTHY STAFFEL | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANGELINA DETTAMANTI, Individually
and as former Trustee of the Carrari Family
Trust,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TIMOTHY J. STAFFEL, individually and in
his official capacity as Judicial Officer of
Santa Barbara Superior Court, et al.

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-55272

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01230-CBM-PLA

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 4, 2020
**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Angelina Dettamanti appeals from the district court’s order denying
injunctive relief and dismissing sua sponte her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising

*
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

FEB 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-55272
from state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review for an abuse of discretion the denial of injunctive and de novo interpretation
of the underlying legal principles. Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746
F.3d 953, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly denied Dettamanti’s motion for injunctive relief
and dismissed her claims against Judge Staffel in his individual capacity on the
basis of judicial immunity because Dettamanti failed to allege facts sufficient to
show that Judge Staffel acted “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or
perform[ed] an act that [was] not judicial in nature.” Schucker v. Rockwood, 846
F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining judicial immunity doctrine); see also
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to declaratory and other equitable relief), superseded by statute on other grounds.
The district court properly denied Dettamanti’s motion for injunctive relief
and dismissed her claims against Judge Staffel in his official capacity on the basis
of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 824-25
(9th Cir. 2007) (state officials sued in their official capacities are entitled to
Eleventh Amendment immunity).
AFFIRMED.