This is a BRIEF respite, as attorneys are filing amended complaints. From the judges decision:
Plaintiffs argue the DOI decisions are final agency actions and have the same force as clearly valid federal statutes. (Dkt. No. 59 at 2–4.) However, assuming without deciding the DOI decisions are final agency actions, the original briefing and the supplemental briefing provide no authority that discusses the judicial immunity exceptions in the context of federal agency
decisions. The Supreme Court has narrowly construed the exceptions to absolute judicial immunity. See, e.g., Stump, 435 U.S. at 357–360; Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554–55 (1967);
Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 347 (1872). Guided by this narrow construction and without authority that supports the analogy that final agency decisions rise to the level of clearly established case law and statutes, the Court declines to adopt this analogy.3 Therefore, Defendant
Dodge is entitled to judicial immunity because on this record and these arguments, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the exceptions to absolute immunity are met.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Dodge’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 30) is GRANTED.
However, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint4 becausedismissal with prejudice is “improper unless it is clear, upon de novo review, that the complaint
could not be saved by any amendment.” Krainski v. Nev. ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nev. Sys. of
Higher Educ., 616 F.3d 963, 972 (9th Cir. 2010). If Plaintiffs choose to amend their complaint,
they must do so within 14 days. If no amendment is filed, the claims will be DISMISSED with