Tom Mark Franks v. R. C. JOHNSON, Warden, Lancaster State Prison;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TOM MARK FRANKS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
R. C. JOHNSON, Warden, Lancaster State
Prison; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-17497
D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00551-DAD-BAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Tom Mark Franks appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.
* 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).
FILED
SEP 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-17497
2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Franks’s action because defendant
Judge Cordova is protected by judicial immunity, defendant Scheid did not act
under color of state law, and defendant Johnson was not linked to any of the
allegations. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (discussing judicial
immunity and its limited exceptions); Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325
(1981) (“[A] public defender does not act under color of state law when
performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal
proceeding.”); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a defendant
must perform or omit to perform an act which he is legally required to do to be
liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --