T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T D A V I D G EN E LA N CA STER, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. T O M L . C A R E Y , W a r d e n ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l an t s. N o. 11- 17332 D. C . No . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 0 5 1 - L KK GG H ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia L a w r e nc e K . K a r l t on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r10, 2012 ** B efo re: W A R D L A W , C L IF T O N , an d N . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D e f e nda nt s appe a l f

r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of the i rm ot i on f

or s um m a ryj udgm e ntba s e d on qua l i f i e d i m m uni tyi n D a vi d G e ne L a nc a s t e r ’ s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng tha tpr i s on of f i c i a l s r e t a l i a t e d a ga i ns thi m f ors e rvi ng 

# FI LED SEP 25 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 17332 2 a s aw itn e s s to as e x u a l m is c o n d u c t c o m p la in t f ile d a g a in s t ap r is o n s ta f f m e m b e r . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o , D av is v . C i t yof L as V egas , 4 7 8 F. 3 d 1 0 4 8 , 1 0 5 3 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) , a n d w e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l yde ni e d qua l i f i e d i m m uni tya tthi s s t a ge of the proceedi ng s bec ause , as sum i ng thatL anca st er ’ s ver si on of the fa ct s i s true, de f e nda nt s ’ r e t a l i a t i on w oul d c ons t i tut e avi ol a t i on of c l e a r l ye s t abl i s he d l a w a nd a r e a s o n ab le o f

f ic ia l w o u ld n o t h a v e b e lie v e d h is c o n d u c t w a s la w f u l. See J ef f er s v . G om ez , 2 6 7 F. 3 d 8 9 5 , 9 0 3 , 9 1 0 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) (e xp l ai ni ng that

“ [w ] here di sput ed fa ct s e xi st. . . w e c an det erm i ne w hether the deni al of qu al i fi ed im m u n ityw a s ap p r o p r ia te b ya s s u m in g th a t th e v e r s io n o f th e m a te r ia l f

a c ts a s s e rte d b yth e n o n - m o v in g p a rtyis c o rr e c t” and st at i ng t es tfor qual i fi ed im m u n ity ) ; P r at t

v . R ow land , 65 F . 3d 80 2, 80 6 (9th C i r. 19 95 ) ( re cogn i zi ng that

“ the pr ohi bi t i on a ga i ns tr e t a l i a t orypuni s hm e nti s ‘ c l e a r l ye s t abl i s he d l a w ’ i n the N i nth C i rc ui t , for qual i fi ed i m m un i ty purpo se s” ). T o the ext entthatdefe nd ant s c hal l enge the suff i ci encyof evi dence supp ort i ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s c on cl usi on thatan i ss ue of fa ctre m ai ns as t o w hether d e f e n d a n ts ’ a c tio n s w e r e r e ta lia to ry , w e la c kju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th a t is s u e . See Jef f ers , 267 F . 3d a t903.11- 17332 3 W e do n otconsi der on app ea l m at er i al s thatw er e notbefore the di stri ct c o u rt. AF F I RME D.