Opinion
No. 08-17440.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
January 25, 2010.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 5:07-cv-06091-RMW.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
John Gabor and Kay Gabor appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their action alleging a conspiracy between district court judges, district court clerks, and counsel who defended a separate civil action brought by the Gabors. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Holt v. Castaneda, 832 F.2d 123, 124 (9th Cir. 1987), and we affirm.
The district court correctly determined that the claims against defendants United States of America, the Administrative Office of the United States District Courts, and Michael Mukasey are barred by sovereign immunity. See Balser v. Dep't of Justice, 327 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating that the United States, federal agencies, and federal officers acting in their official capacities have sovereign immunity). The district court also correctly determined that defendants D. Miyashiro, Jackie Garcia, James A. Scharf, and Bradley Alan Solomon have judicial immunity from claims based on alleged acts performed in their official capacities. See Curry v. Castillo (In re Castillo), 297 F.3d 940, 952 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating that court clerks performing functions closely associated with the judicial process are entitled to absolute immunity); Fry v. Melarango, 939 F.2d 832, 836 (9th Cir. 1991) (stating that absolute quasi-judicial immunity applies to a government attorney's handling of civil litigation).
The district court properly dismissed the remainder of the claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that a court is not required to accept as true a complaint's conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences) (citation omitted).
The Gabors' remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977) (discussing five guidelines to determine whether the "extraordinary" remedy of mandamus is warranted).
AFFIRMED.