United States v. 2020-01-15 | 19-16090 | WOODIE WILLIAMS, JR. V. CHUNG HO CHANG | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WOODIE LEO WILLIAMS, Jr.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CHUNG HO CHANG; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-16090

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02850-JAT-JFM

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 8, 2020
**

Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Woodie Leo Williams, Jr. appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a
procedural due process claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim.

*
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

JAN 15 2020

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

2 19-16090
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Williams’s claim against defendants
Judge Skiff, Judge Fisk, Montgomery, Leiter, and Chang because these defendants
are entitled to judicial or prosecutorial immunity. See Garmon v. County of Los
Angeles, 828 F.3d 837, 842-43 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining prosecutorial
immunity); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc)
(explaining judicial immunity).
The district court properly dismissed Williams’s claim against defendants
Atfel and Wicks because Williams failed to allege facts sufficient to show that
these defendants acted under color of state law. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454
U.S. 312, 318-19 & nn. 7 & 9, 325 (1981) (a private attorney and a public defender
“when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions” do not act under color of state
law within the meaning of § 1983).
AFFIRMED.