Sharon Martin v. Jennell Parks , 363 F. App'x 454 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHARON A. MARTIN, No. 08-17100
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02796-LKK-
EFB
v.
JENNELL PARKS; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Sharon A. Martin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action alleging that defendants conspired to violate her
constitutional rights in relation to alleged zoning violations on her property. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Holt v. Castaneda,
832 F.2d 123, 124 (9th Cir. 1987), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the claims against defendants Hollows,
Candee, Mize, and Scott because they are entitled to judicial immunity based on
alleged acts performed in their official capacities. See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of
Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Absolute immunity is generally
accorded to judges and prosecutors functioning in their official capacities.”).
The district court properly dismissed the remainder of the claims for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Bermudez v. Duenas, 936
F.2d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (“To state a section 1983 claim, a
plaintiff must allege facts which show a deprivation of a right, privilege, or
immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law . . . .”); Cholla Ready Mix,
Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that a court is not required
to accept as true a complaint’s conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of
fact, or unreasonable inferences) (citation omitted).
Martin’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist.
/Research 2 08-17100
Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977) (discussing five guidelines to
determine whether the “extraordinary” remedy of mandamus is warranted).
AFFIRMED.
/Research 3 08-17100