Alonso v. Quan

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 17, 2025
• Docket: 23-3367
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER K. ALONSO, No. 23-3367 D.C. No. 3:23-cv-00760-WQH-NLS Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

WILLIAM QUAN; POLI FLORES; ROSS; M. LEPE NEGRETE; CHRISTOPHER PLOURD,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 15, 2025**

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

Christopher K. Alonso appeals pro se from the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations during his

state criminal proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

* 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). review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)); Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1077 n.1 (9th

Cir. 2006) (determination that judicial immunity applies). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Alonso’s action because defendants,

California Superior Court judges who oversaw Alonso’s criminal proceedings, are

immune from liability. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (barring injunctive relief against

judicial officers for their judicial conduct “unless a declaratory decree was violated

or declaratory relief was unavailable”); Sadoski, 435 F.3d at 1079 (explaining that

judges are absolutely immune from suits for damages based on their judicial

conduct except when acting “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction” (citations and

internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Alonso’s motion for

reconsideration because Alonso did not identify any basis for relief. See United

Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009)

(setting forth the standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

Alonso’s motion to appoint counsel (Docket Entry No. 9) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-3367