NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 25 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JESSE PLASOLA, No. 20-55246

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05592-JAK-PVC v.

MEMORANDUM* STATE OF CALIFORNIA; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 18, 2021** Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Jesse Plasola appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of his state court divorce proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 749-50 (9th Cir. 2009) (Eleventh Amendment

*

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). immunity); Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1077 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006) (judicial immunity); Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.3d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (sua sponte dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Plasola’s claims against defendants State of California and Santa Barbara Superior Court because these defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (state courts are “arms of the state” entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The Eleventh Amendment bars suits which seek either damages or injunctive relief against a state, an arm of the state, its instrumentalities, or its agencies.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed Plasola’s claims against defendants Timothy Staffel and Jed Beebe because these defendants are entitled to judicial immunity. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (judges are immune from suit when performing judicial acts).

The district court properly dismissed Plasola’s claims against defendant Roger Hubbard because he is not a state actor under § 1983. See Simmons, 318 F.3d at 1161 (a lawyer in private practice does not act under color of state law under § 1983).

The State of California’s request for summary affirmance, set forth in its

2 20-55246 answering brief, is denied as moot.

Plasola’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 41) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 20-55246