IKEMEFULA IBEABUCHI V. JANET JOHNSON, No. 18-16653 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 3 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IKEMEFULA CHARLES IBEABUCHI, AKA Charles Ikemefula Ibeabuchi, U.S. COURT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. 18-16653 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-04649-JAT-JZB Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. JANET JOHNSON, Clerk of Supreme Court, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, 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 various constitutional claims. 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 on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity Ibeabuchi’s claims seeking damages because they arise out of Johnson’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”). The district court properly dismissed Ibeabuchi’s claims seeking injunctive relief 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821.01 (tort claim procedures); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (deprivation of property does not constitute a due process violation when a postdeprivation state remedy is available); N. Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th Cir. 2008) (elements of equal protection claim). We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See 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.”). 2 18-16653 Ibeabuchi’s motion for production of transcripts (Docket Entry No. 6) is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 18-16653

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.