Inge v. Lichtenstein

87 F.3d 1319 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. William INGE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Max LICHTENSTEIN, Defendant-Appellant, and Beatrice J. Berry; City of Medford; Moss, Lt.; John W. Bondurant; Bill, Deputy Chief; Moran, Sgt; Tim George; Dave Ryder; Gary Armstrong; John Does 1-10, Defendants. No. 95-35027. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 11, 1996. * Decided June 18, 1996. Before: CANBY, NOONAN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Max Lichtenstein, a police officer for the City of Medford and a defendant in this action, appeals the district court's denial of qualified immunity. We affirm. 3 William Inge, plaintiff in this action, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Lichtenstein omitted material facts from an affidavit used to obtain search warrants to search Inge's property. Lichtenstein moved for summary judgment in this action. Inge argued before the district court that Inge and a former business associate…