Case Name: Raymond ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David RUBIN; Brian Cornell, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-22
Citations: 520 F. App'x 538
Docket Number: No. 08-56379
Parties: Raymond ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David RUBIN; Brian Cornell, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 520
Pages: 538–539

Head Matter:
Raymond ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David RUBIN; Brian Cornell, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-56379.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 14, 2013.
Filed May 22, 2013.
Raymond Robinson, San Diego, CA, pro se.
Cheryl L. Brierton, San Diego Superior Court, Walter C. Chung, Office of the City Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Raymond Robinson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Judge David Rubin conspired with Officer Brian Cornell to violate Robinson's due process rights by relying on Cornell's testimony during a state court infraction proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Robinson's action because defendants are immune from liability. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam) (judges are absolutely immune from suits for damages based on their judicial conduct except when performing nonjudicial functions or acting in the complete absence of jurisdiction); Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 342-43, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983) (police officers who testify in judicial proceedings are absolutely immune from civil liability).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.