Deshay Ford v. Michael Greenberg

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 4 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DESHAY D. FORD, No. 23-55699 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-08339-VBF-RAO v. MEMORANDUM* MICHAEL GREENBERG; MICHAEL AVILA; GARY LAVIGNA; CALIFORNIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 29, 2024** Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Deshay D. Ford appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from an incident involving a state agency judge and information officer. We have jurisdiction under * 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). 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Ford’s claims against Judge Greenberg and Avila on the basis of judicial and quasi-judicial immunity. See In re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 948 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that individuals who perform functions that are judicial in nature or who have a sufficiently close nexus to the adjudicative process are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity); 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). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Ford’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 6) is granted. Because Ford is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, we instruct the district court to return the fees collected for this appeal to Ford. The Clerk will serve this memorandum disposition on the district court clerk and the financial unit of the district court. All other pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2