Ronald Branson, M.d., Plaintiff-appellant, v. Alan Haber, Defendant-appellee, 24 F.3d 244 (9th Cir. 1994)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Ronald Branson appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Allan Haber, a California Superior Court judge, violated his constitutional rights by setting aside a default judgment against the City of Los Angeles in Branson's on-going state-court action. Branson seeks injunctive relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Judicial immunity does not bar claims for injunctive relief in section 1983 actions. Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42 (1984); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc). Nevertheless, where the injunctive relief requested would require the federal court to supervise ongoing state judicial proceedings, federal courts should refrain from issuing an injunction as a matter of comity. See Pulliam, 466 U.S. at 539; Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971).

Here, Branson's request for injunctive relief sought to recuse Judge Haber from Branson's state-court action and to have an impartial judge appointed who could render a default judgment in Branson's favor. Because the relief Branson requests would require a federal court to intrude too far into a state court's judicial proceeding, the district court properly dismissed his action. See Pulliam, 466 U.S. at 539.¹ 

AFFIRMED.