Case ID: f-appx_699/html/0719-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roderick L. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel STONE; Robert Ambroselli, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-15631
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 23, 2017 
    
    Filed October 26, 2017
    
      Roderick L. Mitchell, Pro Se
    R. Lawrence Bragg, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Roderick L. Mitchell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging constitutional violations arising from the imposition of certain parole conditions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Decker v. Advantage Fund Ltd., 362 F.3d 593, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Corp. v. McKinley, 360 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

Dismissal of Roderick’s claim for monetary damages was proper because defendants are entitled to absolute immunity for the imposition of the challenged parole conditions. See Thornton v. Brown, 757 F.3d 834, 840 (9th Cir. 2014) (parole officers are entitled to absolute immunity against claims for damages arising from imposition of parole conditions).

The district court properly dismissed Roderick’s claim for injunctive relief as moot because Roderick is no longer on parole subject to the challenged conditions. See Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 871 (9th Cir. 2002) (“An actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.”).

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