McManama

MEMORANDUM **

Charles E. McManama appeals pro se from the district court’s order sua sponte dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that an attorney and a state court judge violated his constitutional rights in connection with a state court civil action instituted by McManama. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Arakaki v. Lingle, 477 F.3d 1048, 1056 (9th Cir.2007) (dismissal for failure to state a claim); Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1011 (9th Cir.2000) (judicial immunity), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed McManama’s claims against Judge Jones because a state court judge is absolutely immune from damages actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for acts committed within the course of his official duties. See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine, 363 F.3d 916 , 922-23 (9th Cir.2004); see also Omar v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir.1987) (“A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) ... where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.”).

The district court also properly dismissed McManama’s claims against Bonaparte, a lawyer in private practice, because McManama failed to allege…