Cheeseman

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Cheeseman appeals pro se the dismissal of his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Douglas County District Attorney Jack Banta. He contends that the district court erred in concluding that Ban-ta was protected by prosecutorial immunity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

In his amended complaint, Cheeseman alleged that Banta initiated charges and secured a grand jury indictment without probable cause, relying upon perjured testimony and hearsay; charged him under the wrong statute; failed to investigate the charges; failed to dismiss the charges even though he knew or should have known they were meritless; failed to bring Cheeseman to trial in a timely manner; refused to entertain Cheeseman’s charges of perjury; and refused to provide him with copies of public records.

These allegations all concern activities “‘intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.’ ” Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1028 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 , 96 S.Ct. 984 , 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976)). Accordingly, Banta was entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. See id. Cheeseman’s contention lacks…