eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2003-12

Pajooh v. Harmon ( 2003 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                          United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                December 10, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-20509
Conference Calendar
MASSOOD DANESH PAJOOH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MELINDA HARMON, U.S. District Judge, United States District
Judge, individually; DON J. DEGABRIELLE, The Assistant United
States Government Attorney, individually; JOHN DOE,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-03-CV-155
--------------------
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Massood Danesh Pajooh appeals the dismissal with prejudice
of his suit brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
    403 U.S. 388
     (1971), and
other grounds.    Pajooh argues that defendants DeGabrielle and
Judge Harmon are not absolutely immune from suit for damages.
Judge Harmon enjoys absolute immunity because Pajooh’s
claims for damages arose out of acts she performed in the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 03-20509
-2-
exercise of her judicial functions.   See Mitchell v. McBryde,
    944 F.2d 229
    , 230 (5th Cir. 1991).   DeGabrielle enjoys absolute
immunity because his conduct was “intimately associated with the
judicial phase of the criminal process.”   See Beck v. Texas State
Bd. of Dental Examiners,
    204 F.3d 629
    , 637 (5th Cir. 2000).
Pajooh argues that the district court erred when it
determined that he had failed to state a claim upon which
declaratory or injunctive relief could be granted.   Pajooh’s
unsupported conclusory accusations do not suffice to prevent a
motion to dismiss.   See Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc.,
    296 F.3d 376
    , 378 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied,
    123 S. Ct. 1287
     (2003).
The district court’s dismissal with prejudice of Pajooh’s suit is
AFFIRMED.