Unpublished Disposition, 940 F.2d 1535 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Tony Luca appeals pro se the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Richard Duncan, a probation officer. We review de novo, Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989), and affirm.

We construe the district court's sua sponte dismissal of an action prior to issuance and service of process as a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). See id. Dismissal under section 1915(d) is appropriate only if the action is frivolous. A frivolous claim is one that lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

In his complaint, Luca contends that his presentence report contained improper and false statements which adversely affected the sentencing judge. Probation officers who prepare reports for the use of state courts possess absolute judicial immunity from damage suits under section 1983 for acts performed within the scope of their official duties. See Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 158 (9th Cir. 1986). Because Luca's complaint sought monetary damages against a state probation officer for acts performed within the scope of his jurisdiction, his complaint contains no arguable basis in law or fact. See id. Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing his action. See Nietzke, 490 U.S. at 325. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.