Lal Bhatia v. Stephen Corrigan

MEMORANDUM

Lai Bhatia appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging violation of his constitutional rights under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 40 3 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 749 (9th Cir.2009) (immunity); Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir.2004) (failure to state a claim). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bhatia’s Bivens claims against defendant Assistant United States Attorney Corrigan on absolute immunity grounds because Corrigan’s alleged misconduct “was intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 855, 861 , 172 L.Ed.2d 706 (2009) (discussing circumstances under which prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To the extent Bhatia’s allegations of a conspiracy to violate his civil rights are not barred on immunity grounds, the allegations are conclusory and insufficient to support a claim for relief. See Woodrum v.…