Case Name: Massood Danesh PAJOOH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Melinda HARMON, U.S. District Judge, United States District Judge, individually; Don J. Degabrielle, The Assistant United States Government Attorney, individually; John Doe, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-10
Citations: 82 F. App'x 898
Docket Number: No. 03-20509
Parties: Massood Danesh PAJOOH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Melinda HARMON, U.S. District Judge, United States District Judge, individually; Don J. Degabrielle, The Assistant United States Government Attorney, individually; John Doe, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 82
Pages: 898–899

Head Matter:
Massood Danesh PAJOOH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Melinda HARMON, U.S. District Judge, United States District Judge, individually; Don J. Degabrielle, The Assistant United States Government Attorney, individually; John Doe, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-20509.
Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 10, 2003.
Massood Danesh Pajooh, pro se, Waterproof, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Alice Ann Burns, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Massood Danesh Pajooh appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his suit brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and other grounds. Pajooh argues that defendants DeGabrielle and Judge Harmon are not absolutely immune from suit for damages.
Judge Harmon enjoys absolute immunity because Pajooh's claims for damages arose out of acts she performed in the exercise of her judicial functions. See Mitchell v. McBryde, 944 F.2d 229, 230 (5th Cir.1991). DeGabrielle enjoys absolute immunity because his conduct was "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process." See Beck v. Texas State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 204 F.3d 629, 637 (5th Cir.2000).
Pajooh argues that the district court erred when it determined that he had failed to state a claim upon which declaratory or injunctive relief could be granted. Pajooh's unsupported conclusory accusations do not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss. See Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1200, 123 S.Ct. 1287, 154 L.Ed.2d 1041 (2003). The district court's dismissal with prejudice of Pajooh's suit is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.