to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 related to his criminal prosecutions and termination from his public-sector employment. He appeals the district court’s dismissal of his first amended complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the Fourth Amendment illegal search and seizure claim as time-barred. Cal.Civ. Proc.Code § 335.1; Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir.1999). Similarly, we affirm dismissal of the false arrest claims as either time-barred or inadequately pled. Fink, 192 F.3d at 914. We affirm dismissal of the vindictive prosecution claim against Deputy District Attorney Dana Overstreet because she is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Regarding Puentes’s claims for violation of
holding prosecutors immune from civil suits for initiating prosecutions and presenting cases holding that prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from  1983 suits for initiating a prosecution and presenting the case at trial holding that prosecutors are absolutely immune for activities intimately associated with the judicial process such as initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution 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 holding that a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity from a civil suit for damages under  1988 in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the states case including deciding which evidence to present