U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Faurot v. Young
This writing
- Type
- Opinion of the Court
- Per curiam
- Yes — no individual author
- Filed
- June 13, 2002
- Case
- Faurot v. Young
- Case status
- Decided
Source The opinion is per curiam: issued in the name of the court, with no individual author. This is a fact about the opinion, not missing data.
Opening text
The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.
MEMORANDUM ** California state inmate Mark Conrad Faurot, II, appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action against California Superior Court Judge Guy M. Young. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo dismissals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed this action because all of the allegations against Judge Young concern acts normally performed by judges in their judicial capacity. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.…
Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.