United States v. 2020-03-10 | 19-16257 | SHAVEZ EVANS V. JOHN REA | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHAVEZ EVANS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JOHN REA, Honorable Judge, Maricopa
County Superior Court; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-16257

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00709-DWL-JZB

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Shavez Evans appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th

*
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

MAR 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-16257
Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Evans’s claims against his public
defender because he was not acting under color of state law in his representation of
Evans. See Polk County. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 320-25 (1981) (“[A] public
defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s
traditional functions to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.”).
The district court properly dismissed Evans’s claims against Judge Rea and
former Commissioner O’Brien as barred by judicial immunity. See Mireles v.
Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (discussing judicial immunity and its limited
exceptions).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Evans’s motion to
add to his complaint a request to enjoin his ongoing criminal trial. See Zucco
Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth
standard of review). The district court properly found that Younger abstention
would prevent it in interfering with the ongoing state criminal trial. See ReadyLink
Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014)
(setting forth requirements for Younger abstention in civil cases).
Evans’s pending motion for appointment of counsel is denied. See Palmer
v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).
Evans’s pending motions for injunctions, as well as the motion in his

3 19-16257
Opening Brief to amend his complaint to add a claim for injunctive relief, are
denied. As stated above, Younger abstention prevents this Court from interfering
with a state criminal trial. See ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc., 754 F.3d at 758.
Evans’s remaining motion requesting the court take judicial notice of his
affirmation is denied.
AFFIRMED.