Case Name: Wilfred RAPHAEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald R. ROBERTS; et al., Defendants, and David H. Henderson, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-14
Citations: 171 F. App'x 114
Docket Number: No. 04-35454; D.C. No. CV-04-00035-A-JKS
Parties: Wilfred RAPHAEL, Plaintiff-—Appellant, v. Donald R. ROBERTS; et al., Defendants, and David H. Henderson, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 171
Pages: 114–115

Head Matter:
Wilfred RAPHAEL, Plaintiff-—Appellant, v. Donald R. ROBERTS; et al., Defendants, and David H. Henderson, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 04-35454.
D.C. No. CV-04-00035-A-JKS.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2006.
Decided March 14, 2006.
Wilfred Raphael, Bethel, AK, pro se.
Jonathon A. Katcher, Esq., Pope & Katcher, Anchorage, AK, for DefendantAppellee.
Before CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Wilfred Raphael appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing, for failure to state a claim, his civil rights action against his former attorney, a state court judge, and other defendants. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir.2005), and we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, see Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly determined that Raphael could not state a claim because Henderson was not a state actor and the judge was protected by judicial immunity. See Simmons v. Sacramento County Sup. CL, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Raphael was not a prisoner at the time he filed his action, the district court should not have dismissed his action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. We nevertheless affirm because dismissal was proper pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). See Omar v. Sectr-Land Service, Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir.1987) (holding that a district court may dismiss sua sponte pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) when the claimant cannot possibly win relief).
Raphael's remaining contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Circuit Rule 36-3.