Cyrus Kim, I v. Kayla Stahman , 453 F. App'x 757 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 13 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CYRUS Y. KIM, No. 10-35442
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00213-RHW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
KAYLA C. STAHMAN; THOMAS S.
ZILLY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert H. Whaley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Cyrus Y. Kim appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging violations of his constitutional right to petition the government
and state tort law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
*
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).
novo. Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2004) (judicial
immunity); Fry v. Melaragno, 939 F.2d 832, 835 (9th Cir. 1991) (absolute
immunity). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the claims against Assistant United
States Attorney Stahman on the basis of prosecutorial immunity. See Fry, 939
F.2d at 837 (government attorneys have absolute immunity from damages liability
for performing acts “intimately associated with the judicial phase” of litigation).
The district court properly dismissed the claims against Judge Zilly on the
basis of judicial immunity. See Meek v. County of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965
(9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that “[a] judge is not deprived of immunity because he
takes actions which are in error, are done maliciously, or are in excess of his
authority”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kim’s motion to
reconsider because Kim failed to show grounds warranting reconsideration. See
Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63
(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth the standard of review and grounds for
reconsideration).
Kim’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-35442