BROWN v. COUGHENOUR (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-28No. No. 21-35428

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Brown's action against Judge Coughenour on the basis of judicial immunity and affirmed the denial of her motion for reconsideration.

Cecile Andrea Brown filed a pro se appeal challenging a district court order that dismissed her constitutional claims against Judge Coughenour. The appellate court reviewed the dismissal de novo and determined that the district court properly applied judicial immunity doctrine to shield the judge from liability. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Brown's motion for reconsideration, as she had not presented any valid grounds warranting such relief.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether judicial immunity bars the plaintiff's constitutional claims against a judge
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration

Procedural posture

Brown appealed pro se from a district court order dismissing her constitutional claims against Judge Coughenour.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Cecile Andrea Brown appeals pro se from the district courts order dismissing her action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1999) (dismissal on the basis of judicial immunity). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Browns action because Judge Coughenour is entitled to judicial immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (judicial immunity and its limited exceptions).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Browns motion for reconsideration because Brown failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

No further filings will be entertained in this closed case.

AFFIRMED.