Woodie Williams, Jr. v. Chung Ho Chang

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided January 15, 2020·No. 19-16090·Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 15 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WOODIE LEO WILLIAMS, Jr., No. 19-16090

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02850-JAT-JFM

v. MEMORANDUM* CHUNG HO CHANG; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 8, 2020**

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

Arizona state prisoner Woodie Leo Williams, Jr. appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a

procedural due process claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim.

* 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). Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Williams’s claim against defendants

Judge Skiff, Judge Fisk, Montgomery, Leiter, and Chang because these defendants

are entitled to judicial or prosecutorial immunity. See Garmon v. County of Los

Angeles, 828 F.3d 837, 842-43 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining prosecutorial

immunity); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc)

(explaining judicial immunity).

The district court properly dismissed Williams’s claim against defendants

Atfel and Wicks because Williams failed to allege facts sufficient to show that

these defendants acted under color of state law. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454

U.S. 312, 318-19 & nn. 7 & 9, 325 (1981) (a private attorney and a public defender

“when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions” do not act under color of state

law within the meaning of § 1983).

AFFIRMED.

2 19-16090

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

Woodie Williams, Jr. v. Chung Ho Chang, (9th Cir. 2020).

Woodie Williams, Jr. v. Chung Ho Chang (Woodie Williams, Jr. v. Chung Ho Chang) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Polk County v. Dodson
454 U.S. 312 (Supreme Court, 1981)
Wilhelm v. Rotman
680 F.3d 1113 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Detrice Garmon v. County of Los Angeles
828 F.3d 837 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)