RAMIRO OROZCO V. JOHN HOUSTON, ET AL, No. 22-55369 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 24 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAMIRO PLASCENCIA OROZCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-55369 D.C. No. 3:21-cv-02112-CAB-RBB MEMORANDUM* JOHN A. HOUSTON, Judge; ALANA WONG ROBINSON, Judge; LAURA E. DUFFY, US Attorney Chief; MARIETTE IRENE GECKOS, US Attorney Assistant, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2023** Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Ramiro Plascencia Orozco appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging various * 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). constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Plascencia Orozco’s action because the defendants are entitled to absolute immunity. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976) (holding that prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for activities “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process”); Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. for Dist. of Nev., 828 F.2d 1385, 1394 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that federal judicial immunity extends to declaratory and injunctive relief); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (“Judges and those performing judge-like functions are absolutely immune from damage liability for acts performed in their official capacities.”); Flood v. Harrington, 532 F.2d 1248, 1251 (9th Cir. 1976) (applying absolute immunity to federal government attorneys). To the extent that Plascencia Orozco intended to name his federal public defender as a defendant, dismissal was proper because Plascencia Orozco failed to allege facts sufficient to show that such defendant was acting under color of federal law. See Cox v. Hellerstein, 685 F.2d 1098, 1099 (9th Cir. 1982) (explaining that a federal public defender representing an indigent defendant does not act under color of federal law for purposes of a Bivens action). 2 22-55369 All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 3 22-55369

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.