BRIAN O'KEEFE V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, No. 18-16418 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 19 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIAN KERRY O’KEEFE, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-16418 D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00100-RCJ-WGC v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Las Vegas, Nevada; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 12, 2019** Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Nevada state prisoner Brian Kerry O’Keefe appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed O’Keefe’s action because defendants are entitled to judicial and quasi-judicial immunity. See Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing judicial immunity, factors relevant to whether an act is judicial in nature, and extension of judicial immunity to officials other than judges “who perform functions closely associated with the judicial process” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1394 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The judicial or quasi-judicial immunity available to federal officers is not limited to immunity from damages, but extends to actions for declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief.”). We treat O’Keefe’s “motion for leave to file memorandum of points and authorities” (Docket Entry No. 7) as a motion to supplement the opening brief, and grant the motion. O’Keefe’s memorandum of points and authorities included with his motion has been filed. AFFIRMED. 2 18-16418

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.