78 F. 3d 593 - Leathem v. United States District Court Eastern District of California
78 F3d 593 Leathem v. United States District Court Eastern District of California
78 F.3d 593
Marquita Denise LEATHEM; Robert Leathem; Sharon A. Martin;
Clifford Murphy; Betty June Smith, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA; Garland E. Burrell, U.S. District Court Judge,
in his official capacity and personal individual capacity;
Edward J. Garcia, U.S. District Court Judge, in his official
capacity and personal individual capacity; Lawrence K.
Karlton, U.S. District Judge, in his official capacity and
personal individual capacity; David F. Levi, U.S. District
Court Judge, in his official capacity and personal capacity;
Milton L. Schwartz, U.S. District Court Judge, in his
official capacity and personal individual capacity; William
B. Shubb, in his official capacity and personal individual
capacity; Jack L. Wagner, Clerk of Court, in his official
capacity and personal individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 95-16114.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 27, 1995.*
Decided March 5, 1996.
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Advertisement
Memorandum**
Marquita Denise Leathem, Robert Leathem, Sharon A. Martin, Clifford Murphy, and Betty June Smith, appeal pro se the district court's dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992), and affirm.
Appellants contend the district court erred when it dismissed their action on the grounds of absolute and quasi-judicial immunity as well as mootness. Appellants insist that their allegations state federal claims. We disagree for the reasons stated by the district court.