Unpublished Disposition, 848 F.2d 1242 (9th Cir. 1988)
Annotate this CaseJoe BURNS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Judy BUCK; Beck Hicks; Ann Charlie, Dolores Burns; DavidM. Smith, Defendant-Appellees.
No. 86-4273.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 23, 1988.* Decided May 27, 1988.
W.D. Wash.
AFFIRMED.
On Appeal From the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington; Carolyn R. Dimick, District Judge, Presiding.
Before KOELSCH, KILKENNY and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Burns' purported civil rights action (42 U.S.C. § 1983), prosecuted in forma pauperis, is frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1984). His complaint shows beyond doubt that the defendant prosecutor was acting within the scope of his authority in seeking revocation of Burns' bail and the remaining defendants, who supplied affidavits to the prosecutor used at the revocation hearing, were clothed with immunity (prosecutorial and witness, respectively) from civil suit. Lerwill v. Joslin, 712 F.2d 435, 438 (10th Cir. 1983); see also McCarthy v. Mayo, 827 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1987) (as to prosecutor); Sprecher v. Graber, 716 F.2d 968, 975 (2d Cir. 1983) (as to witnesses by affidavit).
Under these circumstances, a court need not delay the inevitable. To do so would serve no useful purpose; it would simply clog the docket, entail the expenditure of valuable time, and give rise to unnecessary expense. In short, a court can and should, in such instances, do as the district court did here, dismiss the action without leave to amend the complaint. Franklin v. Murphy, supra.
AFFIRMED.1
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir.R. 36-3
Burns' motion to present an affidavit into the record is denied
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
