Court Opinion

ID: 9891810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 18:00:44.909296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:00:38.047844
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         OCT 18 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KENNETH ADRIAN FULLER,                          No. 23-15146

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:22-cv-03802-YGR

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM *
KAREN THOMPSON; CORREA, Dr.;
KATHLEEN POZZY; LYNN STARK-
SLATER; DOTY, Dr.; CHRISTINE
BRADY; ROBERT LA FORGE, Judge;
KARLENE NAVERRO, Judge,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted October 10, 2023**

Before:      S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Kenneth Adrian Fuller appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of his state criminal

      *
             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).
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th

Cir. 2012). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Fuller’s action because Fuller failed to

allege facts sufficient to show a conspiracy between the public defenders, court-

appointed psychologists, and state court judges. See Crowe v. County of San

Diego, 608 F.3d 406, 440 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth elements of a § 1983

conspiracy claim); Simmons v. Sacramento County Super. Ct., 318 F.3d 1156,

1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that “conclusory allegations” are insufficient to

state a conspiracy claim under § 1983); see also Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S.

312, 325 (1981) (“[A] public defender does not act under color of state law when

performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal

proceeding.”).

      Fuller’s request for judicial notice, set forth in the opening brief, is denied as

unnecessary.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     23-15146