Case Name: Benjamin PUENTES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-28
Citations: 606 F. App'x 339
Docket Number: No. 12-15911
Parties: Benjamin PUENTES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and PONSOR, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 606
Pages: 339–340

Head Matter:
Benjamin PUENTES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-15911.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 13, 2015.
Filed May 28, 2015.
Benjamin Puentes, pro se.
David Michael Rollo, Esquire, Deputy County Counsel, San Jose, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: KOZINSKI and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and PONSOR, Senior District Judge.
The Honorable Michael A. Ponsor, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Benjamin Puentes brought a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 related to his criminal prosecutions and termination from his public-sector employment. He appeals the district court's dismissal of his first amended complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We affirm the district court's dismissal of the Fourth Amendment illegal search and seizure claim as time-barred. Cal.Civ. Proc.Code § 335.1; Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir.1999). Similarly, we affirm dismissal of the false arrest claims as either time-barred or inadequately pled. Fink, 192 F.3d at 914. We affirm dismissal of the vindictive prosecution claim against Deputy District Attorney Dana Overstreet because she is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976) (holding prosecutors immune from civil suits for initiating prosecutions and presenting cases). Regarding Puentes's claims for violation of due process based upon wrongful termination and conspiracy to deny his due process rights, we affirm dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Last, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Puentes's purported malicious prosecution claim because he never raised that count in his amended complaint, despite the court's invitation for him to do so.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.