David Thompson v. Carlton Davis , 623 F. App'x 895 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 01 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID ALLEN THOMPSON, No. 14-17030
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01539-KJM-AC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CARLTON DAVIS, Deputy District
Attorney,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
David Allen Thompson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of
defendant’s issuance of subpoenas for records from a state mental health hospital
*
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).
while Thompson was in jail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Milstein v. Cooley, 257 F.3d 1004, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001)
(prosecutorial immunity). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Thompson’s § 1983 claims for
damages against Davis because Davis was entitled to prosecutorial immunity.
See Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that a
“state prosecuting attorney enjoys absolute immunity from liability under § 1983
for his conduct in pursuing a criminal prosecution insofar as he acts within his role
as an advocate for the State and his actions are intimately associated with the
judicial phase of the criminal process” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)); see also Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 1984)
(“[P]rosecutorial immunity attaches to the actions of a prosecutor if those actions
were performed as part of the prosecutor’s preparation of his case, even if they can
be characterized as investigative or administrative.” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-17030