OpenJurist

917 F2d 566 Burlison v. Thurston County

917 F.2d 566

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Terry A. BURLISON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THURSTON COUNTY and Paula Casey, Thurston County Superior
Court Judge, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-35026.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 23, 1990.*
Decided Oct. 26, 1990.

Before HUG, NELSON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM**

2

Terry A. Burlison appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action for failure to state a claim. Burlison contends that the district court erred in (1) finding that Casey, a state court judge, is absolutely immune from liability for damages under section 1983 for acts done in her judicial capacity, (2) finding that Thurston County is not liable for the Judge Casey's acts under a respondeat superior theory, and (3) denying his motion to disqualify the presiding judge. We review de novo, Woodrum v. Woodward County, Okla., 866 F.2d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.1989), and affirm.

3

Burlison's section 1983 complaint alleged that Casey, a Thurston County Superior Court judge, violated his right to due process by refusing to enter a default judgment in a civil action he brought against the state insurance commissioner. Burlison sought damages against Thurston County and Judge Casey.

4

The district court properly dismissed Burlison's complaint because Judge Casey is absolutely immune from damages for acts performed in her judicial capacity. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 995 (1988). Moreover, Thurston County is not liable under section 1983 for the acts of its agents or employees under a respondeat superior theory. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Finally, the district court did not err in denying Burlison's motion for recusal because he presented no facts to support his declaration of prejudice against the presiding judge. See Thomassen v. United States, 835 F.2d 727, 732 (9th Cir.1987).

5

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition 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