N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LINDA K. C L IFFOR D , individually with right of survivorship a

nd in he r c a

pa c ity a s the pe rsona l re pre se ntative of The Esta te of R o be rt (B obby ) S. C lifford,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. DAVID C LAR

K, De p uty

She riff, individually

and in his offic i a l c a

pa c ity , De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-16144

D.C . No. 2:11-c v-02591-M C E-C KD
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia M o rrison C . Engla

nd, Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

18, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B ER

ZON a nd M UR G UIA, C irc uit Judge s , a n d M C C ALLA, ** Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED
J UN 05 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Jon P. M c C a lla , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of Te nne sse e , sitting by de signa tion.Pla c e r C ounty De puty She riff Dav id C la rk a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde rs de ny ing, in pa

rt, his m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt on theba s is of qua lifie d im m unity and de ny i ng his m otion for re c onside ra tion. W e dism iss the a p pe a l for la c k of a ppe l late jurisdic tion. 1. W e c onstrue C la

rk’ s tim e ly

notic e of a

ppe a l from

the de nia l of his m otion for re c onside ration a s a

notic e of a

ppe a l from

the de nia l of his m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt, a s we ll. The notic e de m onstra te s C la rk’ s c le a r inte nt to a

ppe a l the unde rly ing orde r, an d a

ny fa ilure to sta

t e an a ppe a l of the unde rly ing orde r in the
m ost re c e nt notic e of a

ppe a l did not pre

judic e the a

ppe lle e . Se e Lolli v . C

ty . of Orange , 351 F.3d 410, 414 (9th C ir. 2003). 2. Although a

n orde r de ny ing sum

m ary judgm e n t is not gen e ra lly im m e diate ly a ppe a la ble a s a fina l de c ision within the

m e aning of 28 U.S.C . § 1291, “ the Supre m e C o urt ha s c re at e d a n e xc e ption to the fina l judgm e nt rule for
c e rta in inte rloc utory a

ppe a ls whe n the distric t c ourt ha s de nie d a m otion for
sum m ary judgm e nt ba se d on qua lifie d im m unity .” Pauluk

v . Sav age , 836 F.3d 1117, 1120–21 (9th C ir. 2016); se e Mitc h e ll v . Forsy th , 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985). If the distric t c o urt c onc lude s tha t m ate ria l dispute s of fa c t re m a in, howe ve r, “ our
re vie w is limi te d to whe the r the de fe nda nt would bee ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity
a s a m atte r of la

w, a ssum ing a ll fa c tua l dispute s a re re solve d , a

nd a ll re a sona

ble
2infe re n c e s a

re drawn, in pla intiff’ s favor.” K arl v . C ity of Mountlak

e Te r rac e , 678 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th C ir. 2012) (c ita tion omitte d). Ac c ordingly , a distric t c ourt’ s de te rm i nation “ that the pa rtie s’ e vide nc e pre s e nts ge nuine issue s of m ate ria l fa c t is
c ate goric a lly

unre vie w a

ble on inte rloc utory

a ppe a l.” Ge orgev . Morris , 736 F.3d 829, 834 (9th C ir. 2013) (quoting Eng v . C oole y , 552 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th C ir. 2009)) (inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). As in G e orge , 736 F.3d a t 834–35, the

distric t c ourt he re followe d Ninth C irc uit pre c e de nt for de a dly forc e c a se s a

nd “ c are fully

e xam ine [d] ‘ a ll the
e vide nc e in the re c ord, . . . to de te rm ine whe the r the offic e r’ s story is inte rna lly
c onsiste n t a

nd c onsiste nt with other known fa c ts.’ ” Gonzale z v . C ity of Anahe im , 747 F.3d 789, 795 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba nc ) (quoting Sc o tt v . He n ric h , 39 F.3d 912, 915 (9th C ir. 1994)). Suc h a c are ful re vie w of the e vide nc e is re quire d to

“ e n sure tha

t the offic e r is not ta

king a dva nta ge of the fa c t tha

t the witne s s m ost like ly to c ontra dic t

his story

— the pe rson shot de a d— is una ble to te stify .” Id
. C la rk doe s not c onte st tha

t the la w outline d in Sc ott v . He nric h a pplie s to his c a se . R athe r, his only

issue on a

ppe a l c onc e rns the outc om e of the distric t c ourt’ s
a pplic ation of tha

t sta nda rd, i.e ., whe the r the distric t c ourt c orre c tly de te rm ine d the re to be signific an t inc onsiste nc ie s in C la rk’ s te stim ony

or othe r “ c i rc um sta

ntia l
e vide nc e tha

t, if be lie ve d, would te nd to disc re dit the polic e offic e r’ s story .” Id.
3“ B e c a

use this inquiry , unde r S

c ott v
. He nric h and its proge ny , c onc e rns ge nuine n e ss—

nam e ly the que stion whe the r the re is e nough e v ide nc e in the re c ord for a j ury to c onc lude tha

t c e rta in fa c ts a

re true

— we m ay not de c ide at

this inte rloc utory

sta ge if the distric t c ourt prope rly pe rform e d it.” G e orge , 736 F.3d a t 835 (c ita tion omitte d). W e the re fore la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w C la rk’ s a p pe a l.

DISM ISSE D.

4