Wilson
Wilson v. Pima County Superior Court
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Demetrius A. Wilson, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
Dismissal of Wilson’s claims against the presiding judge of his criminal trial was proper because a state judge is entitled to immunity for judicial actions taken within his jurisdiction. See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine, 363 F.3d 916 , 922-23 (9th Cir.2004).
Likewise, because the Pima County Attorney was performing his duties as a prosecutor, the district court did not err by dismissing the claims against him on the ground of absolute immunity. See id.
Dismissal of Wilson’s claims against Alicia Cata was proper because a public defender, when appointed to represent an indigent defendant in the traditional adversarial role as here, is not a state actor and therefore not a proper party to a section 1983 action. See Miranda v. Clark Cty., Nevada, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc) (citing Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-18 , 102 S.Ct. 445 , 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981)).