Jarnig v. Wade

Ninth Circuit

Jarnig v. Wade

321 F. App'x 636

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 6, 2009

DocketNo. 07-36055

StatusPublished

This text of 321 F. App'x 636 (Jarnig v. Wade) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jarnig v. Wade, 321 F. App'x 636 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Jonathan Neal Jarnig, an Alaska state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the defendant interfered with his access to courts. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Blankenhom v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 470 (9th Cir.2007). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. United States v. Washington, 969 F.2d 752, 755 (9th Cir.1992). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because quasi-judicial immunity bars civil actions for damages against the defendant, who is the Deputy Court Clerk for Alaska’s Appellate Courts, arising from the performance of duties that are functionally comparable to those of judges. See Curry v. Castillo (In re Castillo), 297 F.3d 940, 947-48 (9th Cir.2002) (concluding that judicial immunity “extends to nonjudicial officers for all claims relating to the exercise of judicial functions,” including administrative acts that are part of the judicial process) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir.1987) (“Court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights violations when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Jonathan Neal Jarnig, an Alaska state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the defendant interfered with his access to courts. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Blankenhom v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 470 (9th Cir.2007). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. United States v. Washington, 969 F.2d 752, 755 (9th Cir.1992). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because quasi-judicial immunity bars civil actions for damages against the defendant, who is the Deputy Court Clerk for Alaska’s Appellate Courts, arising from the performance of duties that are functionally comparable to those of judges. See Curry v. Castillo (In re Castillo), 297 F.3d 940, 947-48 (9th Cir.2002) (concluding that judicial immunity “extends to nonjudicial officers for all claims relating to the exercise of judicial functions,” including administrative acts that are part of the judicial process) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir.1987) (“Court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity from damages for civil rights violations when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

321 F. App'x 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jarnig-v-wade-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack