June 24, 2026·2:24-cv-05384-MWF·Unpublished·By Aisha Johnson
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court order dismissing a pro se plaintiff's constitutional claims against federal judges and U.S. Attorney Office officials. The appellate panel held that judicial immunity barred claims against the judges and that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim against the government attorneys.
Carl Gordon appealed pro se from a district court order dismissing his action alleging constitutional claims arising from his prior federal action. The case involved claims against U.S. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin, Magistrate Judge Margo A. Rocconi, Ninth Circuit judges, and various U.S. Attorney Office officials.
The court’s reasoning
The panel affirmed the dismissal of claims against judicial defendants as barred by judicial immunity. The court found the district court properly dismissed claims against the U.S. Attorney’s Office defendants because Gordon failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in severing claims against Judge Gutierrez, allowing him to continue presiding, and denying Gordon’s motion to disqualify Judge Fitzgerald.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the scope of absolute judicial immunity for federal judges and clarifies the pleading standards required for Bivens claims and Section one thousand nine hundred eighty-three actions in the Ninth Circuit.
