Aanestad

MEMORANDUM **

Paul Aanestad appeals pro se the district court’s orders denying counsel, refusing to enter default judgment, and dismissing his section 1983 claims against the County of San Francisco, the County of Santa Clara Department of Social Services, and individual social services employees, public guardians and deputy district attorneys.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo both a dismissal for failure to state a claim and a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Arrington v. Wong, 237 F.3d 1066,1069 (9th Cir.2001).

The district court properly dismissed Aanestad’s claims against county social services employees on the basis of absolute immunity because they acted in quasi-prosecutorial and quasi-judicial capacities. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003). Likewise, absolute immunity barred Aanestad’s claims against deputy district attorney Blake, because her actions were equivalent to “the functions of an advocate in a criminal prosecution.” Id.

The district court also properly dismissed Aanestad’s challenge to conservatorship proceedings instituted against Ms. Aanestad’s former fiancé, because Aanes- *164 tad…