MICHAEL BRUZZONE V. JAMES MCMANIS, No. 18-17293 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 26 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-17293 D.C. No. 4:18-cv-01235-PJH v. MEMORANDUM* JAMES McMANIS; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Real-party-in-interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2019** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Michael A. Bruzzone appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment * 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). dismissing his action, declaring him a vexatious litigant, and entering a pre-filing review order against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. Rule Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and on the basis of judicial immunity, Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. for Dist. of Nev., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987). We review for an abuse of discretion a pre-filing review order entered against a vexatious litigant. Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Bruzzone’s claims against Judge Alsup as barred by judicial immunity because Judge Alsup’s challenged actions were taken in his judicial capacity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (discussing judicial immunity and its limited exceptions). The district court properly dismissed Bruzzone’s claims against McManis and Faulkner because Bruzzone failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (plaintiff must allege facts that “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged”). The district court did not abuse its discretion by declaring Bruzzone a 2 18-17293 vexatious litigant and entering a pre-filing review order against him because all of the requirements for entering a pre-filing review order were met. See RinggoldLockhart, 761 F.3d at 1062 (setting forth requirements for pre-filing review orders). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 3 18-17293
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.
