Patricia A. Frantom v. Cedric G. White, individually; ANDREA MEDINA, individually

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICIA A. FRANTOM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CEDRIC G. WHITE, individually;
ANDREA MEDINA, individually,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-56889
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01998-PSG-
MRW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Patricia A. Frantom appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising out of the
placement of a monitoring device around her ankle as a condition of her probation.
FILED
DEC 16 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and on the basis of immunity.
Milstein v. Cooley, 257 F.3d 1004, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Frantom’s action because defendants
were entitled to absolute immunity for imposing Global Positioning System
(“GPS”) monitoring as a condition of Frantom’s probation pursuant to their
discretionary authority under section 1210.12 of the California Penal Code. See
Cal. Penal Code § 1210.12 (“A county chief probation officer shall have the sole
discretion, consistent with the terms and condition of probation, to decide which
persons shall be supervised using continuous electronic monitoring administered
by the county probation department.”); see also Thornton v. Brown, 757 F.3d 834,
839-40 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluding that parole officers were entitled to absolute
immunity from the parolee’s damages claims arising out of the imposition of GPS
monitoring as a condition of parole pursuant to their discretionary authority under
section 3010 of the California Penal Code).
AFFIRMED.
14-56889 2

-- 2 of 2 --