Johnson v. Aiken

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 24, 2025
• Docket: 25-725
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 24 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DBA STEVEN ROBERT JOHNSON; DBA No. 25-725 ALEX ROBERT HARVEY; DBA D.C. No. KATHRYN HARVEY; DBA ELIZABETH 6:25-cv-00100-MC ANN HARVEY,

Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM*

v.

Judge ANN L. AIKEN, District Judge; Court Deputy-Case Administrator LORI ERRECART,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2025**

Before: FRIEDLAND, MIILER, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Steven Robert Johnson, Alex Robert Harvey, Kathryn Harvey, and Elizabeth

* 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). Ann Harvey appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their

action alleging misconduct by defendants related to the dismissal of two prior

federal actions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112

(9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action because their claims

are barred by judicial immunity. See Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124,

1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (describing factors relevant to whether an act is judicial in

nature and subject to absolute judicial immunity); In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 952

(9th Cir. 2002), as amended (Sept. 6, 2002) (explaining that quasi-judicial

immunity extends to court clerks performing functions closely associated with the

judicial process).

The emergency motion (Docket Entry No. 7) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-725