Donnell Bledsoe v. Guiliani ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONNELL BLEDSOE, No. 20-16650
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02553-TLN-CKD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GUILIANI, Judge; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Donnell Bledsoe appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Barren
v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
*
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).
The district court properly dismissed Bledsoe’s action because Bledsoe
failed to state any plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th
Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, plaintiff must present
factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend
because amendment would be futile. See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d
1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and stating leave may
be denied if amendment would be futile); see also Polk County v. Dodson, 454
U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (public defender does not act under color of state law when
performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel in a criminal proceeding);
Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (judges are
immune from damage actions for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their
courts; prosecutors are entitled to immunity from § 1983 claims).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Bledsoe’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in the opening brief,
is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-16650