
    Brian ALEXIS, aka Blagoy Petrov Alexiev, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, official capacity; et. al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-56035
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 27, 2017 
    
    FILED OCTOBER 3, 2017
    
      Brian Alexis,' Torrance, CA, pro se.
    Raymond Joseph Fuentes, Fuentes & McNally, LLP, Glendale, CA, Kevin Michael McCormick, Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham, Ventura, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for’decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Brian Alexis, AKA Blagoy Petrov Ale-xiev, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims arising from a state court family law case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Alexis’ claims against Judges Lewis and Pacheco on the basis of judicial immunity. See Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (describing factors relevant to whether an act is judicial in nature and therefore subject to judicial immunity).

The district court properly dismissed Alexis’ claims alleging that the County of Los Angeles is liable because it is “represented” by the Judges, as the California Superior Court and its judges are State actors, not County actors. See Greater L.A. Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 1987) (suit against a California superior court is a suit against the State, which is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity), superseded by statute on other grounds; cf. Hyland v. Wonder, 117 F.3d 405, 413 (9th Cir. 1997) (describing California Superior Court judges as State agents or employees).

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