Robert William Kimble, Sr., Plaintiff-appellant, v. William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice, United States Supremecourt, Defendant-appellee, 77 F.3d 489 (9th Cir. 1996)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Robert William Kimble, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal for lack of prosecution of his action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) brought against William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We may affirm the district court on any basis supported by the record. Shaw v. California Dep't of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 788 F.2d 600, 603 (9th Cir. 1986).

It is well-settled that judges are absolutely immune from liability for damages for acts performed in a judicial capacity. Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 446 U.S. 719, 734-35 (1980); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc). "Judicial immunity applies 'however erroneous the act may have been, and however injurious in its consequences it may have proved to the plaintiff.' " Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 734-35 (quoting Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199-200 (1985)). A judge lacks immunity only where he acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or where he performs an act that is not judicial in nature. See id.

Here, Kimble's complaint alleges that various federal judges, including Chief Justice Rehnquist, violated his constitutional rights by not granting him habeas corpus relief. Because Kimble's allegations involve acts that are within the scope of Chief Justice Rehnquist's judicial duties, Chief Justice Rehnquist is entitled to absolute judicial immunity. See id.

AFFIRMED.