Lopez v. Ramsey

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEPHEN B. LOPEZ, No. 24-6946 D.C. No. 4:24-cv-01925-HSG Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* ISMAIL RAMSEY; KESLIE ANNE STEWART; MAUREEN BESSETTE; Ms. SHINING HSU, Assistant U.S. Attorney; STEPHEN GEORGE CORRIGAN; VIVIAN FU-NING WANG; Ms. WENDY MARIE GARBERS Esquire, Attorney; JEFFREY S. WHITE, District Judge, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2026** Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Stephen B. Lopez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

* 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). dismissing his action seeking to challenge his federal criminal conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 15 F.4th 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2021). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lopez’s action because Lopez failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Garmon v. County of Los Angeles, 828 F.3d 837, 842-43 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that prosecutors are “absolutely immune from § 1983 actions when performing functions intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243-44 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining that federal judges are entitled to immunity for judicial acts taken within their jurisdiction), superseded by statute on other grounds.

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-6946