Unpublished Disposition, 919 F.2d 145 (9th Cir. 1990)
Annotate this CaseFranklin L. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Brian G. SAYLIN, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 90-55548.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 27, 1990.* Decided Nov. 29, 1990.
Before WALLACE, DAVID R. THOMPSON and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Franklin L. Miller appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment for the defendants, thereby dismissing with prejudice his civil rights action for damages. In his complaint, Miller alleged that the defendants, private attorneys and a judge, conspired to deprive him of his civil rights in a legal malpractice action that he brought in California state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court properly determined that the judge is absolutely immune from liability for damages. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc). Moreover, Miller's vague and conclusory allegations of conspiracy are not sufficient to state a claim against the attorneys, who are private persons who do not act under color of state law. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986); Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, Miller's motion for oral argument is denied
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.
