James v. Vix, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Seymore Brown, Judge, et al., Defendant-appellee, 951 F.2d 365 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

James V. Vix appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his civil rights action against Las Vegas Municipal Court Judge Seymore Brown. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

In his compliant, Vix, who had been cited for driving without a driver's license and without proof of financial responsibility, alleged that (1) the municipal court lacked jurisdiction and (2) the State's requirement of a valid driver's license and proof of financial responsibility unconstitutionally infringed on his right to travel. These contentions lack merit.

First, the municipal court had jurisdiction to adjudicate Vix's alleged traffic violations pursuant to Nevada Revised Statute § 5.050(2) and Las Vegas Municipal Code § 10.020.010.¹  Thus, Vix's attack on the municipal court's jurisdiction must fail.² 

Second, Nevada Revised Statutes sections 485.185 and 483.230, which prohibit individuals from driving a motor vehicle without a valid driver's licenses and proof of financial responsibility, do not violate Vix's constitutional right to travel. The United States Supreme Court has stated:

[t]he use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent dangers, renders the reasonableness and necessity of regulation apparent. The universal practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process.

See Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 36 (1941).

Finally, the only defendant properly served was Judge Brown, who is entitled to absolute judicial immunity for acts done within his judicial capacity. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (" [j]udges are immune from damage actions for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts"); see also Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (immunity attaches even if the acts were in error or were performed maliciously). Because Judge Brown's actions were taken in his capacity as municipal court judge, he is entitled to immunity.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order dismissing this action.

AFFIRMED.