ANGELINA DETTAMANTI V. TIMOTHY STAFFEL, No. 19-55272 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANGELINA DETTAMANTI, Individually and as former Trustee of the Carrari Family Trust, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-55272 D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01230-CBM-PLA MEMORANDUM* v. TIMOTHY J. STAFFEL, individually and in his official capacity as Judicial Officer of Santa Barbara Superior Court, et al. Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 4, 2020** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Angelina Dettamanti appeals from the district court’s order denying injunctive relief and dismissing sua sponte her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising * 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). from state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of injunctive and de novo interpretation of the underlying legal principles. Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm. The district court properly denied Dettamanti’s motion for injunctive relief and dismissed her claims against Judge Staffel in his individual capacity on the basis of judicial immunity because Dettamanti failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Judge Staffel acted “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or perform[ed] an act that [was] not judicial in nature.” Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining judicial immunity doctrine); see also Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996) (judicial immunity extends to declaratory and other equitable relief), superseded by statute on other grounds. The district court properly denied Dettamanti’s motion for injunctive relief and dismissed her claims against Judge Staffel in his official capacity on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 824-25 (9th Cir. 2007) (state officials sued in their official capacities are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity). AFFIRMED. 2 19-55272
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.
