Massengale v. Green

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 23, 2026
• Docket: 24-7070
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN MASSENGALE, No. 24-7070 D.C. No. 1:24-cv-00065-KES-CDB Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* KENNETH R. GREEN, Jr., Magistrate Trustee; JUDY J. ROGERS, District Attorney; ARTURO REVELO, Public Defender,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kirk Edward Sherriff, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2026**

Before: SILVERMAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Kevin Massengale appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). connection with his arrest and detention for failure to appear in court. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Garmon v. County of

Los Angeles, 828 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2016) (application of absolute immunity);

Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Massengale’s claims against Judge

Green and Rogers as barred by absolute judicial immunity and absolute

prosecutorial immunity, respectively. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202,

1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Judges are absolutely immune from damages actions for

judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts. . . . A judge loses absolute

immunity only when [the judge] acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or

performs an act that is not judicial in nature.” (citations omitted)); see also Imbler

v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976) (explaining that state prosecutors are

absolutely immune from § 1983 actions when performing functions “intimately

associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process”).

The district court properly dismissed Massengale’s claims against Revelo

because Massengale failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Revelo was acting

under color of state law for purposes of § 1983. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454

U.S. 312, 318 n. 7 (1981) (noting that an attorney does not act under the color of

state law for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when performing the traditional role

2 24-7070 of an attorney); Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting

forth elements of a § 1983 claim, including that the defendant be acting under color

of state law).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

3 24-7070