Martin v. Jensen

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 20, 2026
• Docket: 24-5720
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WALTER MARTIN, No. 24-5720 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:23-cv-04642-VBF-DFM v. MEMORANDUM* TAMILA JENSEN Esquire; CHEVON ROBINSON MARTIN; SAMANTHA JESSNER, Judge, official capacity; LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, named as Los Angeles County Probate Department; SCOTT NORD, Commissioner; STEPHEN MORGAN, Judge; EMANUEL THOMAS II Esquire; DOES, 1-20,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2026**

Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

* 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). Walter Martin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims in connection

with a state probate matter. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo. Sato v. Orange County Dep’t of Educ., 861 F.3d 923, 927-28 (9th

Cir. 2017) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and decision regarding

Eleventh Amendment immunity); Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1077 n.1 (9th

Cir. 2006) (decision regarding judicial immunity). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Martin’s claims against the Los

Angeles Superior Court, Judge Jessner, Judge Morgan, and Commissioner Nord as

barred by Eleventh Amendment and judicial immunity. See Lund v. Cowan, 5

F.4th 964, 969-70 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that claims against state court judge,

sued in his official capacity for judicial acts, were barred by Eleventh Amendment

and judicial immunity); Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Ct., 318 F.3d

1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that the Eleventh Amendment bars suit

against arms of the state, including superior courts and their employees in their

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

(applying judicial immunity to court commissioner acting in a judicial capacity).

The district court properly dismissed Martin’s claims for violations of the

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1962,

because Martin failed to allege facts sufficient to show an enterprise, predicate

2 24-5720 acts, or damage to his business or property. See Glob. Master Int’l Grp., Inc. v.

Esmond Nat., Inc., 76 F.4th 1266, 1271 (9th Cir. 2023) (setting forth required

elements of a RICO private civil action).

The district court properly dismissed Martin’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim

against attorneys Jensen and Thomas because Martin failed to allege facts

sufficient to show that either defendant acted under color of state law. See Polk

County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318 & n.7 (1981) (noting that a private attorney,

even one appointed by the court, does not act under the color of state law for

purposes of § 1983 when performing the traditional role of an attorney); Simmons,

318 F.3d at 1161 (explaining that the plaintiff’s “conclusory allegations that the

lawyer [in private practice] was conspiring with state officers” were insufficient to

consider the lawyer a state actor for purposes of § 1983).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend

because “it is clear that granting leave to amend would have been futile.” Lathus v.

City of Huntington Beach, 56 F.4th 1238, 1243 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted);

Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125, 1131, 1139 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard of review;

denial of leave to amend is proper where no amendment would cure the

complaint’s deficiencies).

Martin’s contention that the district court failed to consider exhibits is

unsupported by the record.

3 24-5720 All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

4 24-5720