Justia Federal District Court Opinions

MEMORANDUM**

John Benjamin Odoms appeals pro se from the district court's dismissal with prejudice of his civil rights action, based on the court's conclusion that the putatively frivolous nature of Odoms' claims failed to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the district court. We review de novo, see Jackson v. State of Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (CA9 1989) (dismissal of in forma pauperis civil rights action as frivolous), and we affirm.

With reference to his claim against Judge Guinan, we note that judges are absolutely immune from civil damage liability for alleged civil rights violations unless they act in the absence of all jurisdiction or perform acts not judicial in nature. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (CA9 1986) (in banc). Similarly, court clerks enjoy absolute, quasi-judicial immunity from damages for putative civil rights violations "when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process." Mullis v. United States Bankr. Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CA9 1987), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 2031 (1988). Finally, private parties are not liable in damages for alleged civil rights violations unless it can be shown that they somehow acted under color of state law. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (CA9 1980) (per curiam).

Here, even the most sympathetic reading of Odoms' complaint reveals that his claim for damages based on alleged civil rights violations stems from nothing more than the entry of a default judgment in a state court proceeding involving a petition for the annulment of his marriage. Such bald and conclusory allegations are clearly frivolous, and do not avoid being so by having been couched in the language of conspiracy. Cf. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (CA9 1988) ("A mere allegation of conspiracy without factual specificity is insufficient"). See also Jackson, 885 F.2d at 640 ("[A] judge may dismiss [as frivolous in forma pauperis ] claims which are 'based on indisputably meritless legal theories' or whose 'factual contentions are clearly baseless' ") ( quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1833 (1989)).

AFFIRMED.