Carroll Dean Williams, Plaintiff-appellant, v. City of Agoura Hills, et al., Defendants-appellees, 19 F.3d 1442 (9th Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 19 F.3d 1442 (9th Cir. 1994) Submitted March 8, 1994. *Decided March 23, 1994

Before: FLETCHER, BRUNETTI and TROTT, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Carroll Dean Williams appeals pro se from the district court's dismissal of his action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

This court reviews the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) for an abuse of discretion. See Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992). A complaint is frivolous for purposes of dismissal under section 1915(d) where it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

Appellant's complaint and first amended complaint were dismissed as unintelligible with directions to amend to state a claim in clear and concise language. Appellant's second amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice because it lacked any arguable basis in law or fact.

Appellant alleged that various private attorneys and grocery store employees (the private defendants) conspired to submit false testimony and documents in a prior civil lawsuit, and that various city officials and police officers (the public defendants) conspired to refuse to accept appellant's crime report regarding the alleged perjury.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the complaint against the private defendants lacked any arguable basis in law. See Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27-28 (1980) (plaintiff bringing Sec. 1983 action must allege facts supporting claim that defendants acted under color of state law); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819, 821-22 (9th Cir. 1989) (defendants in Sec. 1983 action are absolutely immune from liability for live and written testimony given in prior judicial proceedings).

Similarly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the complaint against the public officials failed to state a constitutional violation. See Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364, reh. den., 435 U.S. 918 (1978) (exercise of prosecutorial discretion does not form basis for claim of constitutional violation).

Because we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 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 9th Cir.R. 36-3

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.