Unpublished Disposition, 868 F.2d 1272 (9th Cir. 1989)Annotate this Case
James DHALLUIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Elliott SATTLER, Defendant-Appellee.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted* Oct. 5, 1988.Decided Feb. 6, 1989.
Before FLETCHER, PREGERSON and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
James Dhalluin, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against federal magistrate Elliott Sattler. Dhalluin contends that the district court erred in finding that Magistrate Sattler was immune from section 1983 liability. We affirm.
A federal park ranger arrested Dhalluin in the Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Nevada and charged Dhalluin with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI) and related offenses. Dhalluin appeared before United States Magistrate Elliot Sattler and pleaded guilty to the DUI charge. He received a suspended sentence and was placed on supervised probation for two years.
Subsequently, Dhalluin filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging that Magistrate Sattler "knowingly and vindictively proceeded to bring unnecessary harm upon the plaintiff by acting as a United States magistrate while clearly absent of his jurisdiction." The district court dismissed the action on the ground that Magistrate Sattler was absolutely immune from section 1983 liability. This appeal followed.
Dhalluin's contention that the district court erred in finding that Magistrate Sattler was immune from liability is frivolous. Judges and those performing judge-like functions are absolutely immune from liability for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc).
Dhalluin appears to contend that Magistrate Sattler acted in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction because the federal park ranger arrested Dhalluin on state and not federal property. The record, however, clearly contradicts this contention. Moreover, a guilty plea conclusively proves the factual allegations contained in the indictment. United States v. Mathews, 833 F.2d 161, 164 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, Dhalluin's plea conclusively proved the allegation that his arrest occurred on federal property. See United States v. Davis, 452 F.2d 577, 578 (9th Cir. 1971) (per curiam). Accordingly, Dhalluin's claim is baseless and the district court properly dismissed his action. See Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1075.