John Gabor v. United States ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                           JAN 25 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    JOHN GABOR; KAY GABOR,                            No. 08-17440
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,           D.C. No. 5:07-cv-06091-RMW
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted January 11, 2010 **
    Before:        BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    John Gabor and Kay Gabor appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment
    dismissing their action alleging a conspiracy between district court judges, district
    court clerks, and counsel who defended a separate civil action brought by the
    *
    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).
    Gabors. We 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 correctly determined that the claims against defendants
    United States of America, the Administrative Office of the United States District
    Courts, and Michael Mukasey are barred by sovereign immunity. See Balser v.
    Dep’t of Justice, 
    327 F.3d 903
    , 907 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating that the United States,
    federal agencies, and federal officers acting in their official capacities have
    sovereign immunity). The district court also correctly determined that defendants
    D. Miyashiro, Jackie Garcia, James A. Scharf, and Bradley Alan Solomon have
    judicial immunity from claims based on alleged acts performed in their official
    capacities. See Curry v. Castillo (In re Castillo), 
    297 F.3d 940
    , 952 (9th Cir. 2002)
    (stating that court clerks performing functions closely associated with the judicial
    process are entitled to absolute immunity); Fry v. Melarango, 
    939 F.2d 832
    , 836
    (9th Cir. 1991) (stating that absolute quasi-judicial immunity applies to a
    government attorney’s handling of civil litigation).
    The district court properly dismissed the remainder of the claims for failure
    to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v.
    Civish, 
    382 F.3d 969
    , 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that a court is not required to
    /Research                                  2                                      08-17440
    accept as true a complaint’s conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of
    fact, or unreasonable inferences) (citation omitted).
    The Gabors’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist.
    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                                  08-17440