Cecile Brown v. John Coughenour

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 28 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CECILE ANDREA BROWN, No. 21-35428

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00662-MJP

v.

MEMORANDUM*

JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, U.S. District

Court Judge; UNITED STATES DISTRICT

JUDGES CHAMBERS,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 19, 2021**

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Cecile Andrea Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s order

dismissing her action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th

*

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).

Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Meek v. County of

Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1999) (dismissal on the basis of judicial

immunity). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Brown’s action because Judge

Coughenour is entitled to judicial immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-

12 (1991) (judicial immunity and its limited exceptions).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Brown’s motion for

reconsideration because Brown failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th

Cir. 1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

No further filings will be entertained in this closed case.

AFFIRMED.

2 21-35428