Opinion
No. 19-16257
03-10-2020
SHAVEZ EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHN REA, Honorable Judge, Maricopa County Superior Court; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00709-DWL-JZB MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Shavez Evans appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Evans's claims against his public defender because he was not acting under color of state law in his representation of Evans. See Polk County. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 320-25 (1981) ("[A] public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.").
The district court properly dismissed Evans's claims against Judge Rea and former Commissioner O'Brien as barred by judicial immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (discussing judicial immunity and its limited exceptions).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Evans's motion to add to his complaint a request to enjoin his ongoing criminal trial. See Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review). The district court properly found that Younger abstention would prevent it in interfering with the ongoing state criminal trial. See ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth requirements for Younger abstention in civil cases).
Evans's pending motion for appointment of counsel is denied. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).
Evans's pending motions for injunctions, as well as the motion in his Opening Brief to amend his complaint to add a claim for injunctive relief, are denied. As stated above, Younger abstention prevents this Court from interfering with a state criminal trial. See ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc., 754 F.3d at 758.
Evans's remaining motion requesting the court take judicial notice of his affirmation is denied.
AFFIRMED.