PAUL HUPP V. JEFFREY FREEDMAN, No. 12-55175 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 14 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAUL HUPP, No. 12-55175 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-02337-IEG-RBB v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFREY HOWARD FREEDMAN, individually and in his official capacity as Pro Tem Administrative Law Judge , individually, jointly, and severally, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Irma E. Gonzalez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 7, 2014** Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Paul Hupp appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations and state law claims in * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). connection with the denial of his application for a temporary teaching permit. We review de novo. Sadosky v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1077 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Hupp s action because Freedman is entitled to judicial immunity. See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 923 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that judges functioning in their judicial capacities are generally entitled to judicial immunity and setting fourth factors for determining whether an official s functions are quasi-judicial in nature); Hirsch v. Justices of the Supreme Court, 67 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curium) (concluding that administrative law judges are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity); O Neil v. City of Lake Oswego, 642 F.2d 367, 368-70 (9th Cir. 1981) (extending judicial immunity to a pro tem judge and discussing the distinction between acts taken in clear absence of all jurisdiction and those taken merely in excess of jurisdiction ). AFFIRMED. 2 12-55175

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.