Summary
finding clerk of court immune from suit for failing to respond to pro se plaintiff's letters and failing to file various motions and appeals
Summary of this case from Smiley v. GibsonOpinion
No. 10-55819 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01629-UA-DUTY
09-29-2011
SAMGODSON ESSELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SHERRI R. CARTER, 2nd Defendant US District Court Clerk From 2003-2008; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Samgodson Essell appeals pro se from the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against various United States District Court Clerks. Essel contends that the Court Clerks failed to respond to his letters and failed to file various motions and appeals in connection with his criminal case.
We agree with the district court that the alleged actions fall within the scope of the Clerk of the Court's duties that are an integral part of the judicial process. Accordingly, the district court did not err by dismissing the complaint. See Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987) (explaining that court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights violations when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process).
AFFIRMED.