Home/Ninth Circuit/Cecile Brown v. John Coughenour

Cecile Brown v. John Coughenour

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJuly 28, 2021
Docket21-35428
StatusUnpublished

This text of Cecile Brown v. John Coughenour (Cecile Brown v. John Coughenour) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cecile Brown v. John Coughenour, (9th Cir. 2021).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 28 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CECILE ANDREA BROWN, No. 21-35428

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00662-MJP

v. MEMORANDUM* JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, U.S. District Court Judge; UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGES CHAMBERS,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 19, 2021**

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Cecile Andrea Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s order

dismissing her action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th

* 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). Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Meek v. County of

Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1999) (dismissal on the basis of judicial

immunity). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Brown’s action because Judge

Coughenour is entitled to judicial immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-

12 (1991) (judicial immunity and its limited exceptions).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Brown’s motion for

reconsideration because Brown failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th

Cir. 1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

No further filings will be entertained in this closed case.

AFFIRMED.

2 21-35428

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mireles v. Waco
502 U.S. 9 (Supreme Court, 1991)
Raymond Watison v. Mary Carter
668 F.3d 1108 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
Donald L. Meek v. County of Riverside, and Albert J. Wojcik, Judge, Riverside Municipal Court Rodney Walker, Judge, Riverside Municipal Court
183 F.3d 962 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cecile Brown v. John Coughenour, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cecile-brown-v-john-coughenour-ca9-2021.