Jose Garcia Rodriguez v. DANIEL E. CREED, Superior Court Judge, Santa Clara;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE GARCIA RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DANIEL E. CREED, Superior Court
Judge, Santa Clara; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16975
D.C. No. 5:11-cv-01008-JF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Jose Garcia Rodriguez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional violations in connection with the imposition and enforcement of
FILED
JUL 11 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-16975 2
restitution as part of his criminal conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick
v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We may affirm on any ground
supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.
2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Rodriguez’s § 1983 claim against
defendants Bratty and Brinkley because public defenders performing traditional
lawyer functions are not state actors. See Miranda v. Clark County, Nev., 319 F.3d
465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (public defenders are not state actors).
Dismissal of Rodriguez’s § 1983 claim against Director Terhune and
Warden Lopez was proper because Rodriguez failed to allege sufficient facts to
show that these defendants deprived him of a federal right. See Long v. County of
Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth the elements of a
§ 1983 claim); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Liability
under [§] 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the
defendant.”).
Dismissal of Rodriguez’s § 1983 claim against Judge Creed was proper
because Judge Creed is immune from liability. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (barring
injunctive relief against a judicial officer “unless a declaratory decree was violated

-- 2 of 3 --

11-16975 3
or declaratory relief was unavailable”); Simmons v. Sacramento Cnty. Sup. Ct., 318
F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming dismissal of § 1983 claim against a
judge because “the judge is absolutely immune for judicial acts”).
To the extent that Rodriguez is attempting to invalidate the state court’s
judgment imposing restitution, his claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (“If a federal
plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court,
and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that decision, Rooker-
Feldman bars subject matter jurisdiction in federal district court.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend
because it is clear that amendment would have been futile. See Cato v. United
States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --