869 F.2d 1497
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
George GORDON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF IDAHO, Idaho Collections, Stephen Beer, Dennis
Cain, Richard Grant, Patricia Young, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 87-3935.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 31, 1989.*
Decided March 7, 1989.
Harold L. Ryan, District Judge, Presiding.
Before JAMES R. BROWNING, FARRIS, and WILLIAM A. NORRIS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
George Gordon appeals the district court's dismissal of his action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against the state of Idaho, Idaho Collections and its attorneys, and Idaho state court magistrates Richard Grant and Patricia Young. The district court dismissed Gordon's action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We affirm.
We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim. United Energy Owners Comm., Inc. v. United States Energy Management Sys., Inc., 837 F.2d 356, 360 (9th Cir.1988).
The district court correctly dismissed Gordon's claims against each of the defendants. The Eleventh Amendment grants the state of Idaho immunity from private damage actions in federal court. See Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349 (9th Cir.1982). Magistrates Grant and Young are absolutely immune from damages actions for judicial acts within their jurisdiction. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 57 U.S.L.W. 3412 (Dec. 12, 1988); Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F.2d 1325, 1328 n. 4 (9th Cir.1985). Because the magistrates did not act in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction," they are immune from suit. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978). Idaho Collections and its attorneys were properly dismissed because neither privately retained attorneys nor the parties who hire them act under color of state law, see Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318-19 (1981); Schucker, 846 F.2d at 1205; Briley v. California, 564 F.2d 849, 855 (9th Cir.1977).
The state's request for attorney's fees is denied.
AFFIRMED.
The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to 9th Cir.R. 34-4 and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a), and therefore we deny Gordon's motion requesting oral argument
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Circuit Rule 36-3