Court Opinion

ID: 9380950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 18:00:53.96436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:28.569954
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 21 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH R. LEON,                                 No.    22-15794

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:21-cv-06317-CRB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
DAVID A. CENA, Judge; ERIC S.
GEFFON, Judge; CYNTHIA SERVELY,
Judge; OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF; OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL FOR THE
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA; SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF
SANTA CLARA,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                   Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      California pretrial detainee Joseph R. Leon appeals pro se the district court’s

      *
             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).
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that an excessive bail

order violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Byrd v. Maricopa County Bd. of Supervisors, 845 F.3d 919, 922 (9th Cir. 2017).

We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Leon’s bail-related claims for damages

as barred by absolute judicial immunity. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072,

1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for acts

performed in their official capacity); see also Galen v. City of Los Angeles, 477

F.3d 652, 663 (9th Cir. 2007) (“California vests judicial officers with the exclusive

authority to enhance or reduce bail.”).

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Leon’s motion for

relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) because Leon failed to demonstrate any basis for

relief. See Riley v. Filson, 933 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 2019) (stating standard of

review and grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2