Pajooh v. Harmon

Fifth Circuit

Pajooh v. Harmon

82 F. App'x 898

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 9, 2003

Docket03-20509

StatusUnpublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 82 F. App'x 898 (Pajooh v. Harmon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pajooh v. Harmon, 82 F. App'x 898 (5th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

Massood Danesh Pajooh appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his suit brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and other grounds. Pajooh argues that defendants DeGabrielle and Judge Harmon are not absolutely immune from suit for damages.

Judge Harmon enjoys absolute immunity because Pajooh’s claims for damages arose out of acts she performed in the *899 exercise of her judicial functions. See Mitchell v. McBryde, 944 F.2d 229, 230 (5th Cir.1991). DeGabrielle enjoys absolute immunity because his conduct was “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” See Beck v. Texas State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 204 F.3d 629, 637 (5th Cir.2000).

Pajooh argues that the district court erred when it determined that he had failed to state a claim upon which declaratory or injunctive relief could be granted. Pajooh’s unsupported conclusory accusations do not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss. See Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1200, 123 S.Ct. 1287, 154 L.Ed.2d 1041 (2003). The district court’s dismissal with prejudice of Pajooh’s suit is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM. *

Massood Danesh Pajooh appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his suit brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and other grounds. Pajooh argues that defendants DeGabrielle and Judge Harmon are not absolutely immune from suit for damages.

Judge Harmon enjoys absolute immunity because Pajooh’s claims for damages arose out of acts she performed in the *899 exercise of her judicial functions. See Mitchell v. McBryde, 944 F.2d 229, 230 (5th Cir.1991). DeGabrielle enjoys absolute immunity because his conduct was “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” See Beck v. Texas State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 204 F.3d 629, 637 (5th Cir.2000).

Pajooh argues that the district court erred when it determined that he had failed to state a claim upon which declaratory or injunctive relief could be granted. Pajooh’s unsupported conclusory accusations do not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss. See Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1200, 123 S.Ct. 1287, 154 L.Ed.2d 1041 (2003). The district court’s dismissal with prejudice of Pajooh’s suit is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 F. App'x 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pajooh-v-harmon-ca5-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack