N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT B R UC E A. R O USE, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. EDM UND G. B R O W

N, Jr.; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-15817 D.C . No. 4:13-c v-01020-PJH M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Phy llis J. Ha

m ilton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 12, 2014 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , WA RDLAW , a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. C a lifornia sta te prisone r B ruc e A. R ouse a ppe a l s pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing Eighth Am e ndm e nt viola

tions dueto ove rc rowde d prisons. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w de n ovo a dism issa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A. 

# FIL ED JUN 18 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Hamilton v . Brow n , 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th C ir. 2011). W e m ay a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by the re c ord. Thompson v . Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a ffirm

in pa rt, re ve rse in pa

rt, a nd re m and. Dism issa l of R ouse ’ s re que s ts for injunc tive and e quita ble re lie f wa s prope r be c a use R ouse ’ s e xc lusive fe de ra l re m e dy is a writ of ha

be a s c orpus. Se e Pre ise r v . Rodrigue

z , 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (“ [W ] he n a sta te prisone r is c h a lle nging the v e ry fa c t or dura

tion of his phy sic a l im

prisonm e nt, a

nd the re l ie f he se e ks is a de te rm i nation tha

t he is e ntitle d to im

m e diate re l e a se or a

spe e die r re le a se from that im prisonm e n t, his sole

fe de ra l re m e dy

is a writ of ha

b e a s c orpus.” ). Dism issa l of R ouse ’ s c la im a ga inst Supe rior C ourt JudgeArthur B oc ane gra wa s prope r be c a

use he is im

m une from lia bility . Se e Ashe lman v . Pope , 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th C ir. 1986) (e n ba nc ) (“ Judic ia l im

m unity a pplie s howe ve r e rrone ous the a c t m a

y have be e n, a

nd howe ve r injurious in its c o nse que nc e s it m a y have prove d to thepla intiff.” (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). Howe v e r, dism issa l without le ave to a m e nd of R ouse ’ s c la im

for dam a ge s a ga inst Dire c tor B e ard and Gove rnor B rown in the ir individual c a pa c itie s wa s a

n a buse o f disc re tion be c a

u se the c om

pla i nt’ s de fic ie n c i e s c ould ha ve be e n c ure d by a lle ging injurie s suffe re d a s a re sult of prison ove

rc rowding. Se e Lope

z v . Smith , 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th C ir. 2000) (e n ba nc ) (a buse of disc re tion to de ny 2 1 3 - 1 5 8 1 7le ave to a

m e nd whe n am e ndm e nt wa s not futile ); A k htar v . Me

sa , 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th C ir. 2012) (“ [B ] e fore dism issing a pro se c om

p la int thedistric t c o urt m ust providethe litiga

nt with notic e of the de fic ie nc ie s in his c om pla int in orde r to e nsure tha

t the litiga

n t use s the opportunity

to a m e nd e ffe c tive ly .” (c ita

t ion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)); se e also Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of C o r r ., 869 F.2d 461, 471 (9th C ir. 1989) (“ Only whe n ove rc rowding is c o m

b ine d with other fa c t ors suc h a s viole nc e or ina de quate sta ffing doe s ove rc rowding riseto a n [E] i ghth [A] m e ndm e nt viola tion.” ). Ac c ordingly , we re ve rse the judgm e n t in pa rt a n d re m an d to a llow R o use an opportunity

to file an am e nde d c om

pla i nt. AFFIRM E D in par t, RE V E RSE D in par t, and RE M ANDE D.

3 1 3 - 1 5 8 1 7