Case ID: f-appx_486/html/0640-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Willie J. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Darrell J.K. WONG; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-16523.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 16, 2012.
    Willie J. Jones, Aiea, HI, pro se.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hawaii state prisoner Willie J. Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his prosecution for sexual assault charges. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Jones’s claims against defendant Wong on the basis of prosecutorial immunity. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976) (prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity under § 1983 for “initiating a prosecution and ... presenting the State’s case”).

The district court properly dismissed Jones’s claims against the City and County of Honolulu because Jones failed to allege facts showing that his injury was caused by individual officers whose conduct conformed to an official policy, custom, or practice. See Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 667 (9th Cir.2007) (setting forth requirements for a § 1983 claim of municipal liability).

We do not consider allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

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