Court Opinion

ID: 9375052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 19:00:47.119345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.500297
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 24 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAMIRO PLASCENCIA OROZCO,                       No. 22-55369

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:21-cv-02112-CAB-RBB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
JOHN A. HOUSTON, Judge; ALANA
WONG ROBINSON, Judge; LAURA E.
DUFFY, US Attorney Chief; MARIETTE
IRENE GECKOS, US Attorney Assistant,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                 Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Federal prisoner Ramiro Plascencia Orozco appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging various

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes,

213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Plascencia Orozco’s action because the

defendants are entitled to absolute immunity. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S.

409, 430 (1976) (holding that prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for

activities “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process”);

Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. for Dist. of Nev., 828 F.2d 1385, 1394 (9th Cir. 1987)

(holding that federal judicial immunity extends to declaratory and injunctive

relief); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (“Judges

and those performing judge-like functions are absolutely immune from damage

liability for acts performed in their official capacities.”); Flood v. Harrington, 532

F.2d 1248, 1251 (9th Cir. 1976) (applying absolute immunity to federal

government attorneys).

      To the extent that Plascencia Orozco intended to name his federal public

defender as a defendant, dismissal was proper because Plascencia Orozco failed to

allege facts sufficient to show that such defendant was acting under color of federal

law. See Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (explaining that a

federal public defender representing an indigent defendant does not act under color

of federal law for purposes of a Bivens action).

                                           2                                    22-55369
All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

                                  3   22-55369