1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9

10 GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN, 11 Plaintiff, No. C 22-02506 WHA

12 v.

13 MAXINE CHESNEY, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 Defendant.

15 16 17 Pro se plaintiff filed this action against United States District Court Judge Maxine M. 18 Chesney. A prior order dismissed the action with prejudice (Dkt. No. 18). Plaintiff now 19 moves for reconsideration. 20 Our court of appeals has stated the following regarding motions for reconsideration: 21 Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to 22 be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources. Indeed, a motion for reconsideration should not 23 be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 24 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law. 25 26 Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop,

, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). 27 Plaintiff here offers no new evidence, demonstrates no clear error, and argues no change in the 1 controlling law. He also concedes that the prior dismissal order “appears partially correct” 2 when it determined that Judge Chesney is shielded from civil liability (Br. 4). 3 Plaintiff, however, raises an alternative path for abrogating judicial immunity. He argues 4 that judicial immunity does not shield judges from “equitable enforcement mechanisms which 5 is exactly what this case is regarding” (ibid.). To support that proposition, plaintiff cites Torres 6 v. Voltz: “courts have recognized a narrow exception to judicial immunity for . . . prospective 7 declaratory relief.”

, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2019) (Judge Laurel Beeler). 8 Torres is inapposite. There, the plaintiff brought a Section 1983 claim against California 9 Supreme Court clerks and staff. Id. at *1. Here, in contrast, Austin seeks relief against a 10 federal judge. 11 Federal judges are absolutely immune from civil liability for acts performed in their 12 judicial capacity. Unlike the judicial immunity available to state judges or state judicial 13 officers sued under Section 1983, a federal judge’s immunity is not limited to immunity from 14 damages and extends to actions for declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief. Moore v. 15 Brewster,

(9th Cir. 1996), superseded by statute on other grounds; Mullis 16 v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. for Dist. of Nev.,

(9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff has provided 17 no evidence or allegations that any of defendant’s disputed actions were taken in the clear 18 absence of all jurisdiction or were not judicial in nature. Plaintiff’s claims fail to circumvent 19 defendant’s broad judicial immunity. 20 Lastly, plaintiff references another exception to judicial immunity that may be quickly 21 disposed. Citing Hyland v. Wonder, plaintiff argues that a judge loses judicial immunity when 22 performing administrative acts.

, 413 n.1 (9th Cir. 1997). But Hyland offers little 23 here. By ruling against plaintiff in the underlying suit that gave rise to this action, our 24 defendant was acting squarely within her judicial capacity. 25 Given the inapplicability of the immunity exceptions plaintiff asserts in his motion, this 26 Court will not reconsider its previous dismissal. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion 27 for reconsideration is DENIED, and the hearing is VACATED. Dismissal of this action does not 1 (N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 2, 2021). And plaintiff can continue to pursue his appeal of the prior 2 order herein dismissing this matter with our court of appeals. See Austin v. Chesney, No. 22- 3 15930 (9th Cir. filed June 23, 2022). Absent action from our court of appeals, however, this 4 case is over at the district court. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 8 Dated: July 1, 2022. Pee 10 {als _ LN ot ILLIAM ALSUP 1] UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28