
    Mark DARULIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. San Diego Police Officer GOTTS #6836; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-55328
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    OCTOBER 4, 2017
    Mark Darulis, Spring Valley, CA, pro se.
    Catherine Louise Turner, Deputy City, San Diego City Attorney’s Office Matthew L. Green, Best Best & Krieger LLP, San Diego, 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

Mark Darulis appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims against judicial officers arising out of state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Darulis’s claims against defendant Mies-feld (erroneously sued as “Miefeld”) on the basis of judicial immunity because the challenged action was taken in Miesfeld’s judicial capacity. See Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that judges are immune from suit for money damages for judicial acts and setting forth factors “relevant to the determination of whether a particular act is judicial in nature”); Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 830 (9th Cir. 1995) (judicial immunity applies to municipal court commissioner).

The district court properly dismissed Darulis’s claims against defendant Banks on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity because the challenged actions were “an integral part of the judicial process.” Mullis, 828 F.2d at 1390; see Duvall, 260 F.3d at 1133.

Defendants Miesfeld’s and Banks’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 9) is denied as unnecessary.

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