Peter Navarro, Jr. v. State of California

Good Law
459 F. App'x 676
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 28, 201110-16508California616 words

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,…

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.