The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
BENJAMIN PUENTES, No. 11-17417
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-02511-SI
v.
MEMORANDUM *
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012 **
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Benjamin Puentes appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his action alleging constitutional violations and state law claims
against the County of San Mateo and six probation officers. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 156
(9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Puentes
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any of the
defendants were subject to liability. See id. at 158 (“[P]robation officers preparing
presentencing reports for state court judges are entitled to absolute judicial
immunity from personal damage actions brought under section 1983.”); see also
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243-44 (2009) (officer entitled to qualified
immunity where clearly established law does not show constitutional violation);
Plumeau v. Sch. Dist. #40 Cnty. of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997)
(setting forth bases for municipal liability under § 1983); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d
1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A summary judgment motion cannot be defeated by
relying solely on conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data.”); Cal. Gov’t
Code § 815.2(b) (a public entity is not liable for its employee’s conduct if the
employee herself is immune from liability)
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action with
prejudice because leave to amend would have been futile. See Gordon v. City of
Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Although leave to amend a
2 11-17417
deficient complaint shall be freely given when justice so requires, . . . leave may be
denied if amendment of the complaint would be futile.”).
Puentes’s contentions concerning whether he was required to comply with
the California Tort Claims Act for his extortion and fraud claims under California
law, and whether defendants subjected him to double jeopardy in violation of the
California Constitution, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-17417