MARK GOODWIN V. DAWNA REEVES, No. 14-16970 (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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 27 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARK A. GODWIN, No. 14-16970 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00572-LJO-MJS v. MEMORANDUM* DAWNA FRENCHIE REEVES, Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge, Defendant - Appellee. 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 various constitutional violations in connection with his state criminal proceedings. We * 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). have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Godwin’s federal claims because Judge Reeves is immune from liability. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9, 11-12 (1991) (per curiam) (judges are absolutely immune from suits for damages based on their judicial conduct except when performing nonjudicial functions or acting in the complete absence of jurisdiction). The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Godwin’s state law claims. See Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 821, 826 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that “[a] court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). AFFIRMED. 2 14-16970

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.