
    TONY-TUAN NGUYEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Franz MILLER, as an individual and in his official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-55480
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 13, 2018 
    
    Filed February 23, 2018
    Tony-Tuan Nguyen, Vietnamese American Justice Foundation, Fountain Valley, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Sarah Lee Overton, Attorney, Cummings, McClorey, Davis, Acho & Associates, P.C., Riverside, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Franz Miller, Robert Moss, Timothy Stafford, Orange County Superior Court
    Andrew D. Weiss, Attorney, Law Offices of Andrew D. Weiss, Lake Forest, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Thien Kinh Tran, Thu Hien Nguyen, Andrew Weiss
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2). Nguyen's request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied,
    
   MEMORANDUM

Tony-Tuan Nguyen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

Appellees Thien Kinh Tran, Thu Hien Thi Nguyen, and Andrew Weiss’s motion for summary affirmance (Docket Entry No. 9) is granted because the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982). The briefing schedule as to these appellees is vacated as moot.

The district court properly dismissed Nguyen’s claims against the Orange County Superior Court, Miller, Moss, and Stafford on the bases of Eleventh Amendment and judicial immunity. See Simmons v. Sacramento Cty. Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (suits against California superior courts are barred by the Eleventh Amendment); Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that judges are generally immune from suit for money damages and setting forth factors relevant to whether an act is judicial in nature and subject to judicial immunity).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as meritless Nguyen’s contentions of judicial bias.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     