Bledsoe v. Jacot

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 26, 2025
• Docket: 24-3947
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONNELL BLEDSOE, No. 24-3947 D.C. No. 2:24-cv-00451-DAD-AC Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

KATY JACOT; MARK THIEL; PEARLIE BLEDSOE TOWNES; SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 18, 2025**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Donnell Bledsoe appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action relating to state court proceedings. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28

* 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). U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bledsoe’s action because Bledsoe

failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Simmons v. Sacramento

County Superior Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that

Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to arms of the state, including superior

courts); Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 830 (9th Cir. 1995) (applying

judicial immunity to court commissioner acting in a judicial capacity); Chudacoff

v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., 649 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements of

§ 1983 action); Price v. State of Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991)

(explaining state action requirement and that private parties are generally not state

actors); see also Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver,

N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 190 (1994) (explaining that criminal statutes generally do not

give rise to private rights of action).

We do not consider allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-3947