IKEMEFULA IBEABUCHI V. PAUL PENZONE, No. 18-16049 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 31 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IKEMEFULA CHARLES IBEABUCHI, AKA Charles Ikemefula Ibeabuchi, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-16049 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-03911-JAT-JZB Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. PAUL PENZONE; MICHAEL K. JEANES, Clerk, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 22, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Arizona state prisoner Ikemefula Charles Ibeabuchi, AKA Charles Ikemefula Ibeabuchi, 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 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Ibeabuchi’s claims against defendant Penzone because Ibeabuchi failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth requirements for supervisory liability under § 1983); Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353-55 (1996) (setting forth elements of access-to-courts claim). The district court properly dismissed Ibeabuchi’s claims against defendant Jeanes on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity because they arise out of Jeanes’s administrative acts as a court clerk. See Curry v. Castillo (In re Castillo), 297 F.3d 940, 952 (9th Cir. 2002) (quasi-judicial immunity extends to “court clerks and other non-judicial officers for purely administrative acts”); see also Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights violations when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.”). We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See 2 18-16049 United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”). AFFIRMED. 3 18-16049

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.