Ikemefula Ibeabuchi v. Paul Penzone ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 31 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IKEMEFULA CHARLES IBEABUCHI, No. 18-16049
AKA Charles Ikemefula Ibeabuchi,
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-03911-JAT-JZB
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
PAUL PENZONE; MICHAEL K. JEANES,
Clerk,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Ikemefula Charles Ibeabuchi, AKA Charles
Ikemefula Ibeabuchi, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access to the courts. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ibeabuchi’s claims against defendant
Penzone because Ibeabuchi failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible
claim for relief. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010)
(although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present
factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Starr v.
Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth requirements for
supervisory liability under § 1983); Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353-55 (1996)
(setting forth elements of access-to-courts claim).
The district court properly dismissed Ibeabuchi’s claims against defendant
Jeanes on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity because they arise out of Jeanes’s
administrative acts as a court clerk. See Curry v. Castillo (In re Castillo), 297 F.3d
940, 952 (9th Cir. 2002) (quasi-judicial immunity extends to “court clerks and
other non-judicial officers for purely administrative acts”); see also Mullis v. U.S.
Bankr. Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Court clerks have absolute
quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights violations when they
perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.”).
We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See
2 18-16049
United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not
presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.
3 18-16049