MARK DARULIS V. SAN DIEGO POLICE OFFICER GOTTS, No. 16-55328 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 4 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARK DARULIS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-55328 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00864-CAB-BGS v. MEMORANDUM* SAN DIEGO POLICE OFFICER GOTTS #6836; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Mark Darulis appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims against judicial officers arising out of state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. * 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). Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Darulis’s claims against defendant Miesfeld (erroneously sued as “Miefeld”) on the basis of judicial immunity because the challenged action was taken in Miesfeld’s judicial capacity. See Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that judges are immune from suit for money damages for judicial acts and setting forth factors “relevant to the determination of whether a particular act is judicial in nature”); Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 830 (9th Cir. 1995) (judicial immunity applies to municipal court commissioner). The district court properly dismissed Darulis’s claims against defendant Banks on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity because the challenged actions were “an integral part of the judicial process.” Mullis, 828 F.2d at 1390; see Duvall, 260 F.3d at 1133. Defendants Miesfeld’s and Banks’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 9) is denied as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. 2 16-55328

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.