eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2023-04

Wyatt Redfox v. John Doe ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WYATT N. REDFOX,                                No. 22-35166
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00004-SLG-KFR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOHN DOE, State Magistrate; JOHN DOE,
State DA; TEADI CHANCE, State PO;
JANE DOE, State on-call PO; DENICE
MCKENZIE; BRANDON JONES;
CHARLES D. AGERTER,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before:      CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Wyatt N. Redfox appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging Fourth Amendment claims. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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. Watison v. Carter,
    668 F.3d 1108
    , 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes,
    213 F.3d 443
    , 447 (9th Cir. 2000)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Redfox’s claims against the magistrate
judge and prosecutor as barred by absolute immunity. See Imbler v. Pachtman,
    424 U.S. 409
    , 430 (1976) (holding that prosecutors are entitled to absolute
immunity for activities “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the
criminal process”); Shucker v. Rockwood,
    846 F.2d 1202
    , 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A
judge loses absolute immunity only when he acts in the clear absence of all
jurisdiction or performs an act that is not judicial in nature.”).
The district court properly dismissed Redfox’s claims against defendant
probation officers and police officers because Redfox failed to allege facts
sufficient to state a plausible Fourth Amendment claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler,
    627 F.3d 338
    , 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that although pro se pleadings are
liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible
claim); Dubner v. City & County of San Francisco,
    266 F.3d 959
    , 964 (9th Cir.
2001) (“A claim for unlawful arrest is cognizable under § 1983 as a violation of the
Fourth Amendment, provided the arrest was without probable cause or other
justification.”).
2                                        22-35166
Redfox’s motion to accept his late-filed opening brief (Docket Entry No. 10)
is granted.
AFFIRMED.
3                                  22-35166