The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BASANT SIDHU and SANJESH SINGH, No. 10-17029
Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01090-LKK-
DAD
v.
S. GARCIA, Sheriff’s Deputy; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 17, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Basant Sidhu and Sanjesh Singh appeal the summary judgment entered by
the district court against them. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with
the history of the case, we need not recount it here.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
I
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the Fourth
Amendment claims, correctly concluding that the defendants were entitled to
qualified immunity. In order to determine if qualified immunity applies, a two-part
inquiry should be conducted: (1) did an officer’s conduct violate a constitutional
right; and (2) was the right which was violated clearly established at the time of the
violation. Espinosa v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 598 F.3d 528, 532 (9th Cir.
2010). If an officer did not violate a constitutional right, then that officer is
entitled to qualified immunity. Id.
In this case, the district court correctly determined that the plaintiffs’
constitutional rights were not violated. The warrantless search was justified by the
emergency exception to the Fourth Amendment. The emergency exception is an
extension of “police officers’ community caretaking function” because it allows
officers to respond to “emergency situations that threaten life or limb” in a timely
manner. Hopkins v. Bonvicino, 573 F.3d 752, 763 (9th Cir. 2009). To determine if
the emergency exception applies, this court makes a fact-specific inquiry as to
whether: “(1) considering the totality of the circumstances, law enforcement had an
objectively reasonable basis for concluding that there was an immediate need to
protect others or themselves from serious harm; and (2) the search’s scope and
2
manner were reasonable to meet the need.” United States v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947,
952 (9th Cir. 2008).
Here, the deputies had an objectively reasonable basis for concluding
Singh’s spouse was in imminent need of their assistance. She had written an email
requesting police assistance and further indicating that she may have been being
held against her will. The emails also suggested she may have been in danger of
harm from herself or others. When the deputies arrived at the house, they observed
the furtive figure of a person inside the house. However, no one answered their
knock at the door or telephone calls. The totality of these circumstances justified
the entry into the house under the emergency exception. The manner and the scope
of the deputies’ entry and search were also both reasonable. Given the lack of a
constitutional violation, the district court properly granted summary judgment on
the Fourth Amendment claims.
II
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion
for leave to amend their original complaint as untimely. See De Saracho v. Custom
Food Mach., Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 878 (9th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.
3