John Gabor v. United States

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
JOHN GABOR; KAY GABOR, No. 08-17440
Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 5:07-cv-06091-RMW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
John Gabor and Kay Gabor appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing their action alleging a conspiracy between district court judges, district
court clerks, and counsel who defended a separate civil action brought by the
*
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).
Gabors. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Holt
v. Castaneda, 832 F.2d 123, 124 (9th Cir. 1987), and we affirm.
The district court correctly determined that the claims against defendants
United States of America, the Administrative Office of the United States District
Courts, and Michael Mukasey are barred by sovereign immunity. See Balser v.
Dep’t of Justice, 327 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating that the United States,
federal agencies, and federal officers acting in their official capacities have
sovereign immunity). The district court also correctly determined that defendants
D. Miyashiro, Jackie Garcia, James A. Scharf, and Bradley Alan Solomon have
judicial immunity from claims based on alleged acts performed in their official
capacities. See Curry v. Castillo (In re Castillo), 297 F.3d 940, 952 (9th Cir. 2002)
(stating that court clerks performing functions closely associated with the judicial
process are entitled to absolute immunity); Fry v. Melarango, 939 F.2d 832, 836
(9th Cir. 1991) (stating that absolute quasi-judicial immunity applies to a
government attorney’s handling of civil litigation).
The district court properly dismissed the remainder of the claims for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v.
Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that a court is not required to
/Research 2 08-17440
accept as true a complaint’s conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of
fact, or unreasonable inferences) (citation omitted).
The Gabors’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist.
Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977) (discussing five guidelines to
determine whether the “extraordinary” remedy of mandamus is warranted).
AFFIRMED.
/Research 3 08-17440