Case ID: f-appx_553/html/0726-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Peter GONZALEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J. GARIBAY, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellant, and M.A. Smeloski, Warden; N. Grannis, Chief Inmate Appeals, Defendants.
    No. 12-56610.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 21, 2014.
    
    Filed Jan. 27, 2014.
    Peter Gonzalez, Imperial, CA, pro se.
    Julie Fleming, Timothy James Krai, Esquire, Eugene Philip Ramirez, Esquire, Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez, Trester LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

J. Garibay, a California state correctional officer, appeals from the district court’s order denying him qualified immunity in Peter Gonzalez’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Garibay retaliated against Gonzalez because Gonzalez filed a grievance against Garibay. We dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

We lack jurisdiction to consider this interlocutory appeal because “an order denying qualified immunity on the ground that a genuine issue of material fact exists is not a final, immediately appealable order.” Maropulos v. County of Los Angeles, 560 F.3d 974, 975 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam), citing Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313-20, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995). The district court denied qualified immunity to Garibay after determining that there were genuine disputes of material fact as to whether Garibay’s negative work evaluation and transfer recommendation were retaliatory, and that those facts, if proven, would establish a violation of Gonzalez’s clearly established First Amendment rights. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

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