904 F. 2d 40 - Addleman v. Reser

MEMORANDUM**

Lincoln Lane Addleman, Jr., appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d). Addleman contends that the district court erred in determining that Reser, a state court judge, is absolutely immune from liability for damages under section 1983 for acts done in his judicial capacity. We review de novo, Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1989), and affirm.

Addleman's complaint alleged that Reser, a Washington Superior Court judge, violated Addleman's constitutional right of access to the courts and his due process rights by refusing to hold a hearing in connection with his state habeas corpus petition. Addleman sought damages and declaratory relief.

Judge Reser is absolutely immune from the claims brought against him in this action. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 561 (1988). Therefore, the district court properly dismissed Addleman's complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d). See Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989).

On appeal, Addleman asserts that he no longer seeks damages but rather seeks a determination of whether his state conviction was legal. If Addleman seeks to challenge the fact and duration of his confinement, his exclusive federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).

AFFIRMED.