TONY-TUAN NGUYEN V. FRANZ MILLER, No. 17-55480 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TONY-TUAN NGUYEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-55480 D.C. No. 8:16-cv-02137-CJC-DFM v. MEMORANDUM* FRANZ MILLER, as an individual and in his official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Tony-Tuan Nguyen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s * 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). Nguyen’s request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied. dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm. Appellees Thien Kinh Tran, Thu Hien Thi Nguyen, and Andrew Weiss’s motion for summary affirmance (Docket Entry No. 9) is granted because the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982). The briefing schedule as to these appellees is vacated as moot. The district court properly dismissed Nguyen’s claims against the Orange County Superior Court, Miller, Moss, and Stafford on the bases of Eleventh Amendment and judicial immunity. See Simmons v. Sacramento Cty. Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (suits against California superior courts are barred by the Eleventh Amendment); Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that judges are generally immune from suit for money damages and setting forth factors relevant to whether an act is judicial in nature and subject to judicial immunity). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 2 17-55480 We reject as meritless Nguyen’s contentions of judicial bias. AFFIRMED. 3 17-55480
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.
