Edward A. Russell v. Allister F. MacLeod

39 F.3d 1188 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Edward A. RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Allister F. MACLEOD, et al., Defendant-Appellee. No. 92-15352. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 16, 1994. * Decided Oct. 26, 1994. Before: CHOY, SKOPIL, and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Edward A. Russell appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 civil rights action. We agree with the district court that Russell's claims against a police officer and two prosecuting attorneys are barred by absolute immunity. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 345 (1983) (testifying police officer is immune); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976) (prosecutors are immune for claims involving conduct "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process"). 3 We also agree that Russell's claim against the police department does not allege the necessary existence of a particular official policy…