# Brown v. Kristianson

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · September 12, 1996 · 97 F.3d 1458

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/727713

## Case

- **Full name:** Brian E. Brown v. Larry M. Kristianson, Husband and the Marital Community Composed Thereof, in His Individual and Personal Capacity Jane Doe Kristianson, Wife and the Marital Community Composed Thereof
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 12, 1996
- **Citations:** 97 F.3d 1458; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38351; 1996 WL 519836
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/727713

## Opinion text

97 F.3d 1458
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Brian E. BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Larry M. KRISTIANSON, husband and the marital community
composed thereof, in his individual and personal capacity;
Jane Doe Kristianson, wife and the marital community
composed thereof, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 96-35173.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 1996. *
Decided Sept. 12, 1996.
Before: FLETCHER, BRUNETTI and JOHN T. NOONAN, Jr., Circuit Judges.
1
MEMORANDUM **
2
Brian E. Brown appeals pro se the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking compensatory and punitive damages for allegations that state judge Larry Kristianson violated Brown's constitutional rights in a state court proceeding in which Kristianson adjudged Brown in contempt of court. We conclude the district court's dismissal was proper because Brown's claims are barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity. See Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1394 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1040 (1988).
3
AFFIRMED.
*
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/727713. Public record. Not legal advice.