Singh

Singh v. Magee

Good Law
1 F. App'x 713
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 12, 2001No. 99-17345; D.C. No. CV-94-4146 CALCalifornia364 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Parminder Singh (“Singh”) sued four Immigration and Naturalization Service officers alleging that they were personally liable for their actions in connection with Singh’s unlawful deportation. All defendants moved for summary judgment based on either qualified or quasi-judicial immunity. The district court agreed with defendants and entered judgment in their favor. Singh timely appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

We first address Marian’s and Morales’s claims of qualified immunity. In order for an official to be stripped of his or her qualified immunity, “the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ [so that] ... [t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he [or she] is doing violates that right.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). Singh has failed to present any authority, or any evidence, to support his contention that either Marian or Morales has violated any of his clearly established constitutional rights.

We now turn to Magee’s and Andrew’s claims of quasi-judicial…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.