
    Sharon A. MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jennell PARKS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-17100.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 25, 2010.
    Sharon A. Martin, Rio Linda, CA, pro se.
    Laura Jean Marabito, Thomas Leroy Riordan, Porter Scott Weiberg and Dele-hant, George A. Acero, Senior Counsel, Gordon & Rees LLP, William A. Krabben-hoft, Bobbie J. Montoya, Office of the California Attorney General, Peter A. Krause, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Benjamin Eli Hall, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, Darrell Charles Martin, II, Alborg, Veiluva & Epstein LLP, Walnut Creek, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sharon A. Martin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging that defendants conspired to violate her constitutional rights in relation to alleged zoning violations on her property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Holt v. Castaneda, 832 F.2d 123, 124 (9th Cir.1987), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the claims against defendants Hollows, Candee, Mize, and Scott because they are entitled to judicial immunity based on alleged acts performed in them official capacities. See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir.2004) (“Absolute immunity is generally accorded to judges and prosecutors functioning in their official capacities.”).

The district court properly dismissed the remainder of the claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Bermudez v. Duenas, 936 F.2d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (“To state a section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege facts which show a deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law....”); Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004) (stating that a court is not required to accept as true a complaint’s conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences) (citation omitted).

Martin’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir.1977) (discussing five guidelines to determine whether the “extraordinary” remedy of mandamus is warranted).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     