NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD VINCENT RAY, Jr., No. 17-16040
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:16-cv-02652-YGR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JAMILAH A. JEFFERSON; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Edward Vincent Ray, Jr. appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
defendants engaged in misconduct during the litigation of a separate civil case.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ray’s claims against defendant
Jefferson on the basis of absolute immunity because Ray failed to allege facts
sufficient to show that Jefferson’s actions were not “intimately associated with the
judicial phase[] of . . . litigation.” Fry v. Melaragno, 939 F.2d 832, 836-38 (9th
Cir. 1991) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (explaining the
application of absolute immunity to government attorneys in civil trials).
The district court properly dismissed Ray’s claims against defendant McGee
because Ray failed to allege facts sufficient to show McGee personally participated
in the alleged rights deprivation. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th
Cir. 2011) (elements for supervisory liability under § 1983).
The district court properly dismissed Ray’s claims against the City of
Oakland because Ray failed to allege facts sufficient to show that a policy or
custom of the City caused his alleged injury. See Castro v. County of Los Angeles,
833 F.3d 1060, 1073 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (“[A] municipality may not be held
liable for a § 1983 violation under a theory of respondeat superior for the actions of
its subordinates. In order to establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must show that
2 17-16040
a policy or custom led to the plaintiff’s injury.” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Ray’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 9) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 17-16040