Elmer P. Vild, Plaintiff-appellant, v. C. Kimball Rose, Judge, Individually and in Capacity Assuperior Court Judge; Alan S. Kamin, Judge, Individuallyand in Capacity As Superior Court Judge; Arizona Statecourt of Appeals; Arizona Supreme Court, Defendants-appellees, 116 F.3d 488 (9th Cir. 1997)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 116 F.3d 488 (9th Cir. 1997) Submitted June 17, 1997**Decided June 20, 1997

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, No. CV-94-02545-EHC; Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding.

Before: GOODWIN, SCHROEDER and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM* 

Elmer P. Vild appeals pro se the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Arizona Superior Court judges Rose and Kamin, the Arizona Court of Appeals, and the Arizona Supreme Court, alleging he was denied due process during state proceedings. We conclude the district court's dismissal was proper because Vild's claims are barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity and because Vild cannot use the federal courts to collaterally attack prior state proceedings. See Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 (9th Cir. 1995); Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1394 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1040 (1988).

AFFIRMED.

 **

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4

 *

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.