With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1194 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs action because Dunlap failed to state a cognizable claim against any of the defendants and the deficiencies in his complaint cannot be cured by amendment. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corrections, 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam). Dunlap failed to state a claim against John and Jane Doe of Pretrial Services because absolute immunity shields judges and those performing judge-like functions from liability for acts performed in their official capacity. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.1986). There is no cognizable claim against Cynthia Ryan and Barbara LaWall because both are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 4 , 103 S.Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983) (<HOLDING>); Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona,

A: recognizing that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability
B: holding that prosecutors are absolutely immune from claims alleging conspiracy to present false testimony but witnesses including police officerwitnesses are not absolutely immune from such claims
C: holding michigan friend of the court employees absolutely immune from suit under  1983
D: holding witnesses are absolutely immune from suit for damages with respect to testimony
D.