Joseph R. Leon v. DAVID A. CENA, Judge

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH R. LEON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAVID A. CENA, Judge; ERIC S.
GEFFON, Judge; CYNTHIA SERVELY,
Judge; OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF; OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL FOR THE
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA; SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF
SANTA CLARA,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-15794
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-06317-CRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
California pretrial detainee Joseph R. Leon appeals pro se the district court’s
* 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 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that an excessive bail
order violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Byrd v. Maricopa County Bd. of Supervisors, 845 F.3d 919, 922 (9th Cir. 2017).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Leon’s bail-related claims for damages
as barred by absolute judicial immunity. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072,
1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for acts
performed in their official capacity); see also Galen v. City of Los Angeles, 477
F.3d 652, 663 (9th Cir. 2007) (“California vests judicial officers with the exclusive
authority to enhance or reduce bail.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Leon’s motion for
relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) because Leon failed to demonstrate any basis for
relief. See Riley v. Filson, 933 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 2019) (stating standard of
review and grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --