Herta v. Roberts

── Herta v. Roberts ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA HERTA, No. 25-1965 D.C. No. 3:24-cv-01698-JLS-BLM Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* TERRIE E. ROBERTS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 26, 2026** Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Maria Herta appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We * 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). affirm. The district court properly dismissed Herta’s claims against Judge Roberts as barred by judicial immunity and the Eleventh Amendment. See Lund v. Cowan, 5 F.4th 964, 971 (9th Cir. 2021) (describing factors relevant to the determination of whether an act is judicial in nature and subject to absolute judicial immunity); Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that judges are absolutely immune from suits for damages based on their judicial conduct except when acting “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction”); see also Munoz v. Superior Ct. of Los Angeles County, 91 F.4th 977, 981 (9th Cir. 2024) (affirming dismissal of § 1983 claims seeking declaratory relief because “state court judges cannot be sued in federal court in their judicial capacity under the Eleventh Amendment”). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). All pending requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 25-1965