Pajooh v. Kirk

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 18, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30063
Conference Calendar
MASSOOD DANESH PAJOOH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES D. KIRK; ROBERT H. SHEMWELL; SKY, ProSe Clerk Lawyer;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 03-CV-1143
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Massood Danesh Pajooh appeals the district court’s dismissal
of a complaint alleging Bivens** claims against Magistrate Judge
James Kirk, Clerk of Court Robert Shemwell, a pro se law clerk,
and the United States, for failure to issue requested summonses
in a prior case. The district court found that each of the
defendants was immune from suit and sua sponte dismissed the
complaint pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
**
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
No. 04-30063
-2-
state a claim on which relief can be granted. We review the
district court’s dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) de novo.
Jackson v. City of Beaumont Police Dep’t, 958 F.2d 616, 618 (5th
Cir. 1992).
Pajooh argues that Judge Kirk was not entitled to absolute
judicial immunity because his failure to order the issuance of
the summonses was an administrative, rather than a judicial, act.
We conclude that Judge Kirk’s actions constituted normal judicial
functions for which he is entitled to absolute immunity. See
Malina v. Gonzales, 994 F.2d 1121, 1124 (5th Cir. 1993)
(describing factors for determining whether action was judicial
in nature).
Pajooh’s brief addresses Clerk Shemwell in a single
sentence, and he has failed to even mention the other defendants.
Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even pro se litigants must
brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985
F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Pajooh has waived his claims
against these defendants.
AFFIRMED.