White

White v. Cunningham

Good Law
261 F. App'x 11
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 19, 2007No. 06-15377California874 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Melissa White (“White”), the widow of John White (“Decedent”), appeals the district court’s order granting defendant Beverly Cunningham’s (“Cunningham”) motion for summary judgment on White’s claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . The district court held that Cunningham was entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity. We review de novo and may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Bliesner v. Commc’n Workers of Am., 464 F.3d 910, 913 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm the judgment of the district court on different grounds. The facts of this case are known to the parties and we do not repeat them here.

I

White argues that Cunningham was not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of absolute immunity because Cunningham did not perform a function comparable to judicial tasks such as denying or revoking parole. 1 We agree. Parole board members are entitled to absolute immunity when performing “quasi-judicial functions.” Swift v. California, *13 384 F.3d 1184, 1189 (9th Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Parole officers are not entitled to absolute immunity when performing functions similar to those of a police officer. Id. at 1191 . When taking a…

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.