FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENJAMIN PUENTES, No. 12-15911
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:11-cv-01228-PJH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 13, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and PONSOR,** Senior
District Judge.
Plaintiff Benjamin Puentes brought a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 related to his criminal prosecutions and termination from his public-sector
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Michael A. Ponsor, Senior United States District
Judge for the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
employment. He appeals the district court’s dismissal of his first amended
complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the Fourth Amendment illegal
search and seizure claim as time-barred. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1; Fink v.
Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 1999). Similarly, we affirm dismissal of the
false arrest claims as either time-barred or inadequately pled. Fink, 192 F.3d at
914. We affirm dismissal of the vindictive prosecution claim against Deputy
District Attorney Dana Overstreet because she is entitled to absolute prosecutorial
immunity. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976) (holding prosecutors
immune from civil suits for initiating prosecutions and presenting cases).
Regarding Puentes’s claims for violation of due process based upon wrongful
termination and conspiracy to deny his due process rights, we affirm dismissal for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). Last, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Puentes’s
purported malicious prosecution claim because he never raised that count in his
amended complaint, despite the court’s invitation for him to do so.
AFFIRMED.
2