Unpublished Disposition, 937 F.2d 613 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Naimish D. Parikh appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which he alleged that Hawaii Family Court Judge Darryl Y. C. Choy violated his constitutional rights when Choy granted Parikh's wife an annulment. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim on the grounds that the statute of limitations had run, Choy was entitled to absolute judicial immunity and qualified official immunity, and the eleventh amendment barred Parikh from bringing the action in federal court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. We review de novo, Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 3217 (1990), and affirm.

Judges are absolutely immune from section 1983 liability for damages for their judicial acts, "even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly." Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978). An act is judicial when it is a "function normally performed by a judge [and the parties] dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity." Id. Judges are subject to section 1983 liability for damages only when they act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Id. at 356-57.

Here, Choy was clearly acting within his jurisdiction and performing a judicial act when he granted the annulment to Parikh's wife. See id. Accordingly, the district court correctly dismissed Parikh's section 1983 action on the ground of absolute judicial immunity.¹ 

AFFIRMED.