Yang Goo v. Maria Rullo

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 24, 2023
• Docket: 22-55399
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YANG MO GOO, No. 22-55399

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:22-cv-00341-JLS-DFM

v. MEMORANDUM* MARIA RULLO,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Yang Mo Goo appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying Goo’s

request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissing Goo’s action alleging

federal law violations by a state court judge pro tempore. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of an IFP

* 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). request. Rodriguez v. Steck, 795 F.3d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2015) (order). We

review de novo a determination of judicial immunity. Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d

1076, 1077 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Goo’s request to proceed IFP and

dismissed Goo’s action as barred by absolute immunity. See Ashelman v. Pope,

793 F.2d 1072, 1075-78 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (“Judges and those performing

judge-like functions are absolutely immune from damage liability for acts

performed in their official capacities.”); Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124,

1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (describing factors relevant to the determination of whether

an act is judicial in nature and subject to absolute judicial immunity).

Because Goo has paid the required filing fee on appeal, Goo’s motion to

proceed IFP on appeal (Docket Entry No. 6) is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

2 22-55399