Dennis O'COnnOr v. State of Nevada

Good Law
686 F.2d 749·1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 16387
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 24, 198281-5423California580 words

Opinion

Opinion

O’Connor appeals a dismissal of his civil rights actions brought against the State of Nevada, several of its agencies, Churchill County District Attorney Hill, and Fallon Municipal Court Judge Teurman. O’Con-nor alleged various violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 , 1985 and 1986, as well as various constitutional amendments and provisions. The district court granted motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6) as to all defendants. The essential facts can be found in the district court’s opinion. O’Connor v. State of Nevada, 507 F.Supp. 546 (D.Nev.1981) {O’Connor). We affirm.

As to the dismissal of suit against Judge Teurman and District Attorney Hill, we agree with the district court that Judge Teurman, as a witness in a state judicial proceeding, and District Attorney Hill, as a state prosecutor, are both absolutely immune from civil rights suits. O’Connor, supra, 507 F.Supp. at 548-50 . O’Connor also suggests that besides Judge Teurman’s participation as a witness in the state judicial proceeding, his handling of O’Connor’s prior municipal court action violated his constitutional rights. Clearly, though, Judge Teurman is immune…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.