Simon v. Cumba

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PHILLIP WALTER SIMON, No. 25-1727 D.C. No. 3:25-cv-00107-CAB-MSB Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* DEBORAH A. CUMBA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2026**

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

Phillip Walter Simon appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from

a child support case in state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on

* 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). the basis of judicial immunity. Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1077 n.1 (9th

Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Simon’s action because defendant

Cumba is immune from liability. See Moore v. Urquhart, 899 F.3d 1094, 1104 (9th

Cir. 2018) (“Section 1983 . . . provides judicial officers immunity from injunctive

relief even when the common law would not.”); 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); Franceschi v.

Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 830 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (applying judicial

immunity from damage liability to a state court commissioner for acts taken in a

judicial capacity and not in a clear absence of jurisdiction); see also Munoz v.

Superior Ct. of L.A. County, 91 F.4th 977, 980-81 (9th Cir. 2024) (affirming

dismissal of § 1983 claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief because “state

court judges cannot be sued in federal court in their judicial capacity under the

Eleventh Amendment,” including for prospective injunctive relief); Lund v.

Cowan, 5 F.4th 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2021) (“The Eleventh Amendment does not

permit retrospective declaratory relief.”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Simon’s contentions about judicial

bias, misconduct, and conspiracy.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

2 25-1727 in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

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

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 25-1727