BRIAN ALEXIS V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, No. 15-56035 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 3 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIAN ALEXIS, AKA Blagoy Petrov Alexiev, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-56035 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01529-ODW-GJS Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 27, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Brian Alexis, AKA Blagoy Petrov Alexiev, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims arising from a state court family law case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. * 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). We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Alexis’ claims against Judges Lewis and Pacheco on the basis of judicial immunity. See 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 therefore subject to judicial immunity). The district court properly dismissed Alexis’ claims alleging that the County of Los Angeles is liable because it is “represented” by the Judges, as the California Superior Court and its judges are State actors, not County actors. See Greater L.A. Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 1987) (suit against a California superior court is a suit against the State, which is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity), superseded by statute on other grounds; cf. Hyland v. Wonder, 117 F.3d 405, 413 (9th Cir. 1997) (describing California Superior Court judges as State agents or employees). AFFIRMED. 2 15-56035

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.