Medina v. Pollard
Filed 2/4/10 Medina v. Pollard CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
M. MEDINA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. NANCY POLLARD, as Judge, etc., Defendant and Respondent. | G041715 (Super. Ct. No. 30-2008-00111104) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kazuharu Makino, Judge. Affirmed.
A. Medina, in pro per.; M. Medina, in pro per.; N. Medina, in pro per.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, James M. Humes and James M. Schiavenza, Assistant Attorneys General, Richard Rojo and Heidi T. Salerno, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent.
Plaintiffs A. Medina, M. Medina, and N. Medina appeal from a judgment entered after the court sustained a demurrer to their complaint without leave to amend.[1] Plaintiffs had alleged defendant Nancy Pollard, a superior court judge, violated their federal civil rights by issuing an order barring A. Medina from taking his minor children, M. and N. Medina, out of the country.
Judge Pollard has absolute judicial immunity from suits based on her judicial acts. (Stump v. Sparkman (1978) 435 U.S. 349, 355-56.) Plaintiffs cannot invoke the narrow exception for claims seeking injunctive relief. (See Pulliam v. Allen (1984) 466 U.S. 522, 541-542.) This exception is severely curtail[ed] by the prerequisites for obtaining injunctive relief: a showing of an inadequate remedy at law and of a serious risk of irreparable harm. (Id. at p. 537.) Plaintiffs cannot allege they lack an adequate remedy at law because the order could be challenged by motion and appeal. (See id. at p. 542 & fn. 22; accord Lezama v. Justice Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 15, 21; Sterling v. Calvin (1989) 874 F.2d 571, 572.)
The judgment is affirmed. Defendant shall recover her costs on appeal.
IKOLA, J.
WE CONCUR:
OLEARY, ACTING P. J.
FYBEL, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Plaintiffs have violated our order to provide their full names. We may summarily dismiss this appeal due to their willful disobedience. (See TMS, Inc. v. Aihara (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 377, 379.)
