Unpublished Disposition, 921 F.2d 279 (9th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 921 F.2d 279 (9th Cir. 1990)

David ALLISON, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 89-55721.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 18, 1990.* Decided Dec. 20, 1990.

Before GOODWIN, Chief Judge, and SCHROEDER and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

David Allison appeals the district court's judgment dismissing his action with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6). Allison contends that the district court erred in dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action, and in denying him leave to amend. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1921. We review de novo, Baker v. McNeil Island Corrections Center, 859 F.2d 124, 127 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted), and affirm.1 

Allison seeks to amend his complaint to set forth a claim against the County based on the prosecutorial conduct of the district attorney. A state prosecuting attorney is absolutely immune from liability in a suit for damages under the Civil Rights Act. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 422-23 (1976).

A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course any time before a responsive pleading is served unless amendment would be futile. Albrecht v. Lund, 845 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1988), modified, 865 F.2d 111 (1988) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Because in this case amendment would be futile, the district court did not err in denying Allison leave to amend. See Albrecht, 845 F.2d at 195 (citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition 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

 1

Originally, Allison also named the State of California as a defendant in this action. The district court, however, dismissed the State of California from this action, and this appeal is taken from the dismissal of the County of Los Angeles only