Raymond Robinson v. David Rubin; Brian Cornell

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND ROBINSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVID RUBIN; BRIAN CORNELL,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-56379
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00244-DMS-
BLM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Robinson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Judge David Rubin conspired
with Officer Brian Cornell to violate Robinson’s due process rights by relying on
Cornell’s testimony during a state court infraction proceeding. We have
FILED
MAY 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-56379 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393
F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Robinson’s action because defendants
are immune from liability. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9, 11-12 (1991) (per
curiam) (judges are absolutely immune from suits for damages based on their
judicial conduct except when performing nonjudicial functions or acting in the
complete absence of jurisdiction); Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 342-43 (1983)
(police officers who testify in judicial proceedings are absolutely immune from
civil liability).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --