NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 15 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN LEWIS, No. 17-15241
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01080-TLN-KJN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JAN SCULLY, District Attorney,
Sacramento County; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Kevin Lewis appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations
arising from his state court conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.
*
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).
2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572,
579 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lewis’s action as Heck-barred because
success on Lewis’s claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction,
and Lewis failed to show that his conviction had been invalidated. See Heck, 512
U.S. at 486-87 (if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the
invalidity of his conviction or sentence . . . the complaint must be dismissed unless
the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been
invalidated”).
The district court properly dismissed claims for damages against Judges
Mendez, Gilliard, and Newman on the basis of judicial immunity because Lewis
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that these defendants acted “in the clear
absence of all jurisdiction or perform[ed] an act that [was] not judicial in nature.”
Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining judicial
immunity doctrine).
The district court properly dismissed claims for damages against defendants
Scully and Asker on the basis of prosecutorial immunity because Lewis failed to
2 17-15241
allege facts sufficient to show that the actions of these defendants were not
“intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Van de
Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 341 (2009) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted) (explaining prosecutorial immunity doctrine).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lewis’s motion to
recuse because Lewis failed to establish any grounds for such relief. See United
States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of
review and grounds for recusal).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 17-15241