Pajooh v. Harmon, 82 F. App'x 898

Pajooh v. Harmon

82 F. App'x 898

5th Cir.

2003

Check Treatment

Docket

Massood Danesh PAJOOH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Melinda HARMON, U.S. District Judge, United States District Judge, individually; Don J. Degabrielle, The Assistant United States Government Attorney, individually; John Doe, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-20509

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Dec. 10, 2003

Conference Calendar

Massood Danesh Pajooh, pro se, Waterproof, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Alice Ann Burns, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney‘s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:^*

Massood Danesh Pajooh appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his suit brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and other grounds. Pajooh argues that defendants DeGabrielle and Judge Harmon are not absolutely immune from suit for damages.

Judge Harmon enjoys absolute immunity because Pajooh‘s claims for damages arose out of acts she performed in the exercise of her judicial functions. See Mitchell v. McBryde, 944 F.2d 229, 230 (5th Cir.1991). DeGabrielle enjoys absolute immunity because his conduct was “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” See Beck v. Texas State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 204 F.3d 629, 637 (5th Cir.2000).

Pajooh argues that the district court erred when it determined that he had failed to state a claim upon which declaratory or injunctive relief could be granted. Pajooh‘s unsupported conclusory accusations do not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss. See Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1200, 123 S.Ct. 1287, 154 L.Ed.2d 1041 (2003). The district court‘s dismissal with prejudice of Pajooh‘s suit is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.

Notes

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.