NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WOODIE LEO WILLIAMS, Jr., No. 19-16090

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02850-JAT-JFM v.

MEMORANDUM* CHUNG HO CHANG; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

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). 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.

2 19-16090