Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 1
ANTONNEO R. BOYCE, No. 04-17348
D.C. No. CV-03-01327- —
Plaintiff- Appellant, ROS/ECV
v.
COUNTY OF MARICOPA, sued in its . JUDGMENT
. individual & official capacity; et al.,
C _ Defendants - Appellees. 1 C
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
(Phoenix).
This cause came on to be heard on the Transcript of the Record from the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix) and was duly
N ‘ submitted. .
( On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this
` -
l Court, that the judgment ofthe said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is
AFFIRMED. { l U
Filed and entered 08/15/05
1 A mus ccnpv I
CATHY A. <;ArrEres0r¤:
_ Q- `€—3l@r3< of Court
sis;
A §,;§i$~“ ,,_,( realli 2006
? , ig§"*_R»m_l*§»lwwa
· ‘ jpl ' 0 ‘ Clerk
Case 2:03—cv—01327—ROS—-ECV Document 27 Filed O2/15/2006 Page 1 of 4

I - • l V
* NOT FOR PUBLICATION F I L E D I
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 15 2005
I F ron Tina Nmrn crncurr °*’t'1!»..‘°t§tllt‘}"t'§£*§i9p"t§i'sE““
AN TONNEO R. BOYCE, No. 04-17348
l Plaintiff- Appellant, D.C. No. CV-O3-01327-ROS/ECV
v. ‘ l
MEMoRANouM*
COUNTY OF MARICOPA, sued in its
individual & official capacity; etal.,
Defendants - Appellees. I I
U Appeal from the United States District Court A _
for the District of Arizona
· Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding ·
Submitted August l, 2005 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAI-IAN, and- BEA, Circuit Judges.
Antonneo R. Boyce, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro_se the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Maricopa
A County officials violated his civil rights by preparing a report stating he may be
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited
to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
" The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). , A
Case 2:O3—cv—O1327—ROS—-ECV Document 27 Filed O2/15/2006 Page 2 of 4

' prone to violence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo dismissals under the screening provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we may affirm on
any ground supported bythe record, Graves v. City of CoeurD Déllene, 339 F.3d
1 l 828, 846 n.23 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. U 9
( _ The district court properly concluded that the probation officer defendants ·
were entitled to absolute quasi—judicial immunity against damages claims. See
j Demoran v. Witt, 781 F .2d 155, 157 (9th Cir. 1986). Boyce also failed to allege
facts sufficient to support his claims that defendants conspired to violate his (
1 constitutional rights, see Price v. Plawaii, 939 1*.2d 702, 708-09 (9th Cir. 1991), or
. retaliated against him for exercising his constitutional rights, see .9oranno ’s
Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989).
Moreover, Boyce*s contention that he may be subjected to police brutality if
information suggesting he may be violent is not expunged from his criminal files
does not create a present case or controversy supporting a claim for injunctive
relief. See Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105 (1983) (injunctive relief is only
available if there is a real or immediate threat that the plaintiff will be wronged).
The district court also properly dismissed Boyce’s defamation claim,
_ because he failed to allege facts supporting his "loss of a recognizable property or
p 3 9
Case 2:O3—cv—O1327—ROS—-ECV Document 27 Filed O2/15/2006 Page 3 of 4

' liberty interest in conjunction with the allegation of injury to reputation? See
Cooper v. Dupnik, 924 F.2d 1520, 1532 (9th Cir. 1991).
_ Boyce’s remaining contentions lack merit. g .
Boyce’s February 11, 2005, "Motion for Taking of Judicial Notice" is
denied. l .
U AF FIRMED.
` A more cow
t i carey A. czmrreosem -
n cam er com
- Anger __
I I0 1 _;j~FEB ;1_ hiring 5
it xp TErlevevq
g V ¤e¤%Ea¤`“?“‘
3
Case 2:03-cv—O1327—ROS—-ECV Document 27 Filed O2/15/2006 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01327-ROS--ECV

Document 27

Filed 02/15/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01327-ROS--ECV

Document 27

Filed 02/15/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01327-ROS--ECV

Document 27

Filed 02/15/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01327-ROS--ECV

Document 27

Filed 02/15/2006

Page 4 of 4