Case ID: f-appx_368/html/0839-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Douglas Stephen FRENCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cynthia D. CARLSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-35892.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 3, 2010.
    Douglas Stephen French, Umatilla, OR, pro se.
    Before FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. 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

Douglas Stephen French, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants unlawfully amended a judgment in his state criminal case in order to impose consecutive sentences. We review de novo, Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the claims against the state judge on grounds of judicial immunity because the state judge was not acting in the “clear absence” of jurisdiction. Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.2006).

The district court properly dismissed the claims against the district attorney defendants on grounds of prosecu-torial immunity. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976) (holding that prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity under section 1983 for conduct that is “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process”).

The district court properly dismissed the claims against the public defender because French alleged no facts demonstrating the public defender was acting under color of state law when he represented French. See Miranda v. Clark County, Nev., 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc) (explaining that state public defender performing traditional lawyer functions was not a state actor under section 1983).

Our review of the record indicates that French did not demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” warranting the appointment of counsel. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991).

French’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.