Lundberg v. Matz
This text of 57 F. App'x 347 (Lundberg v. Matz) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Timothy Jonathan Lundberg appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing [348]*348his action alleging judicial and government misconduct in criminal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s dismissal de novo. See Hicks v. Small, 69 F.3d 967, 969 (9th Cir.1995). We affirm.
The district court properly held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Lundberg’s federal claims were wholly insubstantial. See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537-38, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974). Lundberg’s arguments regarding absolute judicial immunity are unavailing because the action was dismissed as frivolous, not on immunity grounds.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the [348]*348courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
57 F. App'x 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lundberg-v-matz-ca9-2003.