Narrative Opinion Summary
Thomas D. Patrick appeals pro se the dismissal of his Bivens action against Arizona federal district court judges Paul G. Rosenblatt and Susan R. Bolton. The Nevada district court dismissed Patrick's complaint due to lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants, referencing Doe v. American Nat’l Red Cross, 112 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 1997), and based on absolute judicial immunity, citing Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1996). Patrick's motion is rejected as lacking merit. The court affirms the dismissal. This decision is not for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Absolute Judicial Immunitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The dismissal was further supported by the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity, protecting judges from suits for actions performed in their judicial capacity.
Reasoning: The Nevada district court dismissed Patrick's complaint... based on absolute judicial immunity, citing Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1996).
Lack of Personal Jurisdictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismissed the complaint due to the lack of personal jurisdiction over the Arizona federal district court judges.
Reasoning: The Nevada district court dismissed Patrick's complaint due to lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants, referencing Doe v. American Nat’l Red Cross, 112 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 1997).
Non-Publication of Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision is not designated for publication and may not be cited within the circuit except under specific rules.
Reasoning: This decision is not for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Pro Se Litigant's Motion Rejectionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The pro se litigant's motion was rejected because it lacked merit.
Reasoning: Patrick's motion is rejected as lacking merit.