Ramiro Orozco v. John Houston

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAMIRO PLASCENCIA OROZCO, No. 22-55369
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:21-cv-02112-CAB-RBB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOHN A. HOUSTON, Judge; ALANA
WONG ROBINSON, Judge; LAURA E.
DUFFY, US Attorney Chief; MARIETTE
IRENE GECKOS, US Attorney Assistant,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Ramiro Plascencia Orozco appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging various
*
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).
constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes,
213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Plascencia Orozco’s action because the
defendants are entitled to absolute immunity. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S.
409, 430 (1976) (holding that prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for
activities “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process”);
Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. for Dist. of Nev., 828 F.2d 1385, 1394 (9th Cir. 1987)
(holding that federal judicial immunity extends to declaratory and injunctive
relief); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (“Judges
and those performing judge-like functions are absolutely immune from damage
liability for acts performed in their official capacities.”); Flood v. Harrington, 532
F.2d 1248, 1251 (9th Cir. 1976) (applying absolute immunity to federal
government attorneys).
To the extent that Plascencia Orozco intended to name his federal public
defender as a defendant, dismissal was proper because Plascencia Orozco failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that such defendant was acting under color of federal
law. See Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (explaining that a
federal public defender representing an indigent defendant does not act under color
of federal law for purposes of a Bivens action).
2 22-55369
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 22-55369