FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOUGLAS STEPHEN FRENCH, No. 08-35892
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00528-HA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CYNTHIA D. CARLSON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ancer L. Haggerty, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Douglas Stephen French, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) his
*
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).
PDM/Research
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants unlawfully amended a
judgment in his state criminal case in order to impose consecutive sentences. We
review de novo, Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)
(order), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the claims against the state judge on
grounds of judicial immunity because the state judge was not acting in the “clear
absence” of jurisdiction. Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2006).
The district court properly dismissed the claims against the district attorney
defendants on grounds of prosecutorial immunity. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424
U.S. 409, 430 (1976) (holding that prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity
under section 1983 for conduct that is “intimately associated with the judicial
phase of the criminal process”).
The district court properly dismissed the claims against the public defender
because French alleged no facts demonstrating the public defender was acting
under color of state law when he represented French. See Miranda v. Clark
County, Nev., 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (explaining that state
public defender performing traditional lawyer functions was not a state actor under
section 1983).
PDM/Research 2 08-35892
Our review of the record indicates that French did not demonstrate
“exceptional circumstances” warranting the appointment of counsel. See Terrell v.
Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).
French’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
PDM/Research 3 08-35892