MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Benjamin Puentes brought a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 *340 related to his criminal prosecutions and termination from his public-sector employment. He appeals the district court’s dismissal of his first amended complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the Fourth Amendment illegal search and seizure claim as time-barred. Cal.Civ. Proc.Code § 335.1; Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 1999). Similarly, we affirm dismissal of the false arrest claims as either time-barred or inadequately pled. Fink, 192 F.3d at 914. We affirm dismissal of the vindictive prosecution claim against Deputy District Attorney Dana Overstreet because she is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976) (holding prosecutors immune from civil suits for initiating prosecutions and presenting cases). Regarding Puentes’s claims for violation of due process based upon wrongful termination and conspiracy to deny his due process rights, we affirm dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Last, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Puentes’s purported malicious prosecution claim because he never raised that count in his amended complaint, despite the court’s invitation for him to do so.

AFFIRMED.