Wyatt N. Redfox v. JOHN DOE, State Magistrate

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WYATT N. REDFOX,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOHN DOE, State Magistrate; JOHN DOE,
State DA; TEADI CHANCE, State PO;
JANE DOE, State on-call PO; DENICE
MCKENZIE; BRANDON JONES;
CHARLES D. AGERTER,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-35166
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00004-SLG-KFR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Wyatt N. Redfox appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Fourth Amendment claims. We
* 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).
FILED
APR 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-35166
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter,
668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Redfox’s claims against the magistrate
judge and prosecutor as barred by 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”); Shucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A
judge loses absolute immunity only when he acts in the clear absence of all
jurisdiction or performs an act that is not judicial in nature.”).
The district court properly dismissed Redfox’s claims against defendant
probation officers and police officers because Redfox failed to allege facts
sufficient to state a plausible Fourth Amendment claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that although pro se pleadings are
liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible
claim); Dubner v. City & County of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.
2001) (“A claim for unlawful arrest is cognizable under § 1983 as a violation of the
Fourth Amendment, provided the arrest was without probable cause or other
justification.”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-35166
Redfox’s motion to accept his late-filed opening brief (Docket Entry No. 10)
is granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --