MARK GODWIN V. REBECCA FLEMING, No. 14-16559 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 27 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARK A. GODWIN, No. 14-16559 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00573-LJO-SAB v. MEMORANDUM* REBECCA J. FLEMING; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 17, 2015** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Former California state prisoner Mark A. Godwin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion denial of leave to amend, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Godwin’s complaint after concluding that further amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Although leave to amend should be given freely, a district court may dismiss without leave where a plaintiff’s proposed amendments would fail to cure the pleading deficiencies and amendment would be futile.”); see also Curry v. Castillo (In re Castillo), 297 F.3d 940, 947, 952 (9th Cir. 2002) (absolute judicial immunity “extends to nonjudicial officers for all claims relating to the exercise of judicial functions,” including some administrative acts “which taken out of context would appear ministerial, but when viewed in context are actually a part of the judicial function” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages . . . when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.”). We treat Godwin’s “Motion to bring All 1983 Actions, To One Court,” filed on September 3, 2014, as a motion to treat his three pending appeals as related and grant the motion. AFFIRMED. 2 14-16559

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.