Peter Navarro, Jr. v. State of California
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Peter Navarro, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law violations in connection with the prosecution of a sex offense charge against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004) (failure to state a claim and Eleventh Amendment immunity); Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916 , 922 (9th Cir.2004) (prosecutorial immunity). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1076-77 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The magistrate judge properly recommended, and the district court properly entered, dismissal with prejudice as to the constitutional claims barred by absolute immunity. See Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 824-25 (9th Cir.2007) (discussing Eleventh Amendment immunity); Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1028 (9th Cir.2003) (addressing the scope of prosecutorial immunity). As to the remaining claims for which the magistrate judge recommended granting leave to amend,…