Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00290/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00290-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Greg Moore, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Sean Garnand, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-00290-TUC-RM (LAB)

ORDER 

On August 1, 2022, the Court denied Defendants’ Amended Motion for Summary 

Judgment (“Amended MSJ”) without prejudice and with leave to re-file after the 

completion of discovery, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). (Doc. 374.)1 

Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal. (Doc. 375.) The Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals has ordered the parties to address, in their appellate briefs, whether the Ninth 

Circuit “has jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion asserting qualified immunity 

where the district court denied the motion without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 56(d).” Moore v. Garnand, No. 22-16236 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2022). (See

Doc. 382 at 7-8.)

Currently pending before this Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Appeal as 

Frivolous. (Doc. 377.) Defendants filed a Response in opposition (Doc. 379), and 

Plaintiffs filed a Reply (Doc. 382). Plaintiffs argue that this Court should certify 

Defendants’ appeal of its August 1, 2022 Order as frivolous because appellate courts do 

1 All record citations herein refer to the docket and page numbers generated by this 

Court’s electronic filing system.

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 383 Filed 09/14/22 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

not have jurisdiction to review denials of qualified immunity on interlocutory appeal 

when the district court’s decision turns on disputes of material fact. (Doc. 377.) 

Plaintiffs further argue that Defendants’ interlocutory appeal is merely “a continuation of 

[Defendants’] efforts to frustrate a prompt resolution of this matter,” and that certifying 

the appeal as frivolous is necessary to prevent “more meritless disruption and delay.” (Id.

at 5.) In opposition, Defendants argue that an interlocutory appeal of a denial of 

summary judgment based on qualified immunity is allowed even if the denial was 

without prejudice because the purpose of qualified immunity is not merely to avoid 

standing trial but to avoid the burdens of pretrial matters such as discovery. (Doc. 379 at 

3-5.) Both parties dispute one another’s characterizations of this Court’s August 1, 2022 

Order. (See Doc. 379 at 6-7; Doc. 382 at 3-4.)

I. Applicable Law

The courts of appeals have jurisdiction “of appeals from all final decisions of the 

district courts of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “Denials of summary judgment 

are typically not appealable, as they are not final orders.” Ballou v. McElvain, 29 F.4th 

413, 421 (9th Cir. 2022). However, under the “collateral order” doctrine, a district 

court’s denial of a defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified 

immunity is an immediately appealable collateral order “to the extent it turns on an issue 

of law.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985). Appellate jurisdiction is limited 

to the question of “whether the defendant would be entitled to qualified immunity as a 

matter of law, assuming all factual disputes are resolved, and all reasonable inferences 

are drawn, in plaintiff’s favor.” Ballou, 29 F.4th at 421 (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

Ordinarily, “the filing of a notice of interlocutory appeal divests the district court 

of jurisdiction over the particular issues involved in that appeal.” City of Los Angeles, 

Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2001); see also

Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992) (the filing of an interlocutory 

appeal of a denial of qualified immunity “divests the district court of jurisdiction to 

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 383 Filed 09/14/22 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

proceed with trial”). However, if the notice of appeal “is defective in that it refers to a 

non-appealable interlocutory order, it does not transfer jurisdiction to the appellate court, 

and so the ordinary rule that the district court cannot act until the mandate has issued on 

the appeal does not apply.” Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905, 908 (9th Cir. 2007). 

In addition, a district court retains jurisdiction to proceed with trial if it certifies in writing 

“that the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity is frivolous or has been waived.” 

Chuman, 960 F.2d at 105. A qualified immunity claim is frivolous if it is “so baseless 

that it does not invoke appellate jurisdiction.” Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012, 1017 n.8 

(9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). The ability of a district court to 

certify an immunity appeal as frivolous “minimizes disruption of the ongoing 

proceedings,” thereby guarding against the opportunity for abuse afforded by a 

defendant’s ability to file successive immunity appeals. Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 

299, 310-11 (1996). 

II. Discussion

Plaintiffs characterize the Court’s August 1, 2022 Order as holding that issues of 

fact “precluded a finding, as a matter of law, that Defendants were entitled to qualified 

immunity.” (Doc. 377 at 4.) Defendants characterize the Court’s Order as resting on a 

finding “that Defendants violated clearly established law.” (Doc. 379 at 5 (internal 

quotation marks omitted).) Neither characterization is accurate. The Court did not make 

a finding that material issues of fact precluded summary judgment, nor did the Court 

make a finding that Defendants violated clearly established law. Instead, the Court 

granted relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) after finding that: (1) 

Defendants’ Amended MSJ was not limited to qualified immunity arguments that could 

be resolved as a matter of law without discovery because the Amended MSJ relied upon 

Defendants’ selected version of the facts to dispute Plaintiffs’ allegations; and (2) 

Plaintiffs have not had a full and fair opportunity to discover evidence relevant to their 

opposition to the arguments contained in the Amended MSJ due to prior application of 

the law enforcement investigatory privilege. (Doc. 374 at 10-12.)

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 383 Filed 09/14/22 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Given the nature of this Court’s August 1, 2022 Order, it is far from clear that the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over Defendants’ appeal. This Court has 

not made any determination whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; it 

merely found that the arguments raised in Defendants’ Amended MSJ could not be 

resolved without further discovery. Nevertheless, this Court has been unable to locate 

any Ninth Circuit precedent addressing whether a defendant asserting qualified immunity 

is entitled to an immediate appeal of a district court’s grant of Rule 56(d) relief.2 The 

Court also recognizes that the defense of qualified immunity “is meant to give 

government officials a right, not merely to avoid standing trial, but also to avoid the 

burdens of such pretrial matters as discovery.” Behrens, 516 U.S. at 308 (internal 

quotation marks and emphasis omitted). To the extent Defendants argue on appeal that 

they were entitled to qualified immunity without further discovery, there is some 

possibility that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could determine it has jurisdiction 

even though this Court’s August 1, 2022 Order did not explicitly determine whether 

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and even though the Order denied 

Defendants’ Amended MSJ pursuant to Rule 56(d), without prejudice and with leave to 

re-file.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Appeal as Frivolous (Doc. 

377) is denied.

Dated this 13th day of September, 2022.

2 Dahlia v. Stehr, 491 Fed. App’x 799 (9th Cir. 2012) (mem.), offers limited support for 

Defendants’ position, though it is unpublished and does not specifically discuss Rule 

56(d).

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 383 Filed 09/14/22 Page 4 of 4