Narrative Opinion Summary
Rusley Robinson, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, which claimed a violation of his right to a speedy trial. The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the case de novo. The court affirms the district court’s dismissal of Robinson’s claims against multiple defendants (Henderson, Robison, Arthur, Shockley, Mock, Toney, Felix, Wasiczko, Brown, Ing-man, Hollows, Levi, Fletcher, Beezer, Leavy, Brown, Herndon, Moulds, and Bur-rell) as duplicative of a previous action. Additionally, claims against Damrell, Drozd, Farris, Canby, Pregerson, Fernandez, Wardlaw, and Kozinski are affirmed as barred by judicial immunity. All pending motions in the case are denied, and the court notes that this decision is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in court except under specific rules.
Legal Issues Addressed
Dismissal of Claims as Duplicativesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's dismissal of Robinson’s claims against multiple defendants is affirmed because these claims were identical to those in a previous action.
Reasoning: The court affirms the district court’s dismissal of Robinson’s claims against multiple defendants... as duplicative of a previous action.
Judicial Immunitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The claims against several defendants are dismissed because they are protected by judicial immunity.
Reasoning: Additionally, claims against Damrell, Drozd, Farris, Canby, Pregerson, Fernandez, Wardlaw, and Kozinski are affirmed as barred by judicial immunity.
Jurisdiction of the Appellate Courtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals exercises its jurisdiction to review the district court's decision dismissing the prisoner's claims.
Reasoning: The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the case de novo.
Non-Publication of Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court indicates that the decision is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases except under specific conditions.
Reasoning: The court notes that this decision is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in court except under specific rules.