Case Explained: GORDON V. OLGUIN, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-24 Docket: 2:24-cv-05384-MWF The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Carl Gordon’s civil rights action against various federal judges, U.S. Attorney Office officials, and other individuals in their individual capacities. The court held that the claims against the judicial defendants were properly barred by absolute judicial immunity because the challenged acts were judicial in nature. Regarding the claims against the U.S. Attorney’s Office defendants, the court affirmed the dismissal for failure to state a plausible claim, applying the standard from *Ashcroft v. Iqbal* which requires sufficient factual matter to support relief, and noted that criminal statutes rarely imply a private right of action under *Bivens*. The appellate court further determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in severing claims against Judge Gutierrez while allowing him to continue presiding over the remaining defendants, nor in denying Gordon’s motion to disqualify Judge Fitzgerald, as a litigant is not disqualified by a suit filed against them. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of Gordon’s post-judgment motions for lack of any basis for relief. All pending motions and requests were denied, and the judgment of the district court was affirmed. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.