Summary
affirming dismissal of § 1983 action because plaintiff did not allege facts to show defendants violated any federally protected right by allegedly failing to investigate the theft of his property
Summary of this case from Sharpe v. GrundyOpinion
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01379-MCE-GGH. Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding.
DEREK TODD, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Vacaville, CA.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Derek Todd appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Judge Ichikawa denied Todd visitation with his son during Easter in violation of Todd's constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Todd's action because Judge Ichikawa is immune from liability. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam) (judges are absolutely immune from suits for damages based on their judicial conduct except when performing nonjudicial functions or acting in the complete absence of jurisdiction).
AFFIRMED.