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 by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. 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 AN GE L O D AH L I A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. T IM S T E H R , i n d i v i d u al l y, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t, a nd C IT Y O F B U R B A N K , a m un i ci pal c o rp o r a rt i o n ; OM AR RODRI GU EZ , i ndi vi dua l l y a nd a s aL i e ut e na ntof the B u rb a n kP o l i c e De p a rtm e n t ; J OH N M U R P H Y , i n d i v i d u al l y an d as a L i eut enantof the B urbank P ol i ce De p a rtm e n t ; E DG ARP E NA R AN DA , i ndi vi dua l l y a nd a s aS e r ge a ntof the Bu rb a n kPo l i c e D e p a rtme n t ; J O SE D U R A N , i ndi vi dua l l y a nd a s aS e r ge a ntof the B urbank P ol i ce D epartm ent ; C H R IS C A N A L E S , i n d i v i d u al l y an d as a D et ec t i ve of the B urbank P ol i ce D e p a rtm e n t, D efen d an t s. N o. 10- 55283 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 8 4 5 3 - MMMJ EM ME MOR AN DU M * 

# FI LED AU G 07 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s appe a l 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). S t e hrm ove s t o s uppl e m e ntthe e xc e rpt s of r e c or d on appe a l w i th the 1 d istrict co u rt o rd eran d su b se q u en t n o ti ce o f ap p ea l i n P lain ti ff A n g elo D ah li a’s rel at ed ap p eal (N o . 1 0 -5 5 9 7 8 ), an d req u est s th atw e t ak e j u d i ci al n o t i ce o f th o se d o cu m en t s. W e g ran tth e req u estb ecau se th o se d o cu m en t s are j u d i ci al reco rd s, L ee v. C i t

y of L os A ng eles , 2 5 0 F .3 d 6 6 8 , 6 8 8 - 8 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) , th e y r e la te to p r o c e e d in g s th a t in v o lv e th e s a m e p a rtie s r e f le c te d in th o s e d o c u m e n ts , E ga n v. T e e ts , 2 5 1 F .2 d 5 7 1 , 5 7 7 - 7 9 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 5 7 ) , a n d th o s e ju d ic ia l d e v e lo p m e n ts “ af fe ctou r c on si dera t i on of the vari ou s i ss ues pre se nt ed, ” B r y ant v . Car le s on , 444 F . 2d 353, 357 ( 9th C i r . 1971) . H ow e ve r , w e de c l i ne t o s uppl e m e ntthe e xc e rpt s of r e c o r d o n ap p e a l o n th e g r o u n d th a t it is u n n e c e s s a ry .

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 C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M a r ga r e tM . M orr ow , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d M a y 8, 2012 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: W A R D L A W , P A E Z , an d R A W L IN S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D e f e nda ntT i m S t e hrappe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of hi s m ot i on f ors um m a ry j udgm e nton the gr ound tha ti tw a s pr e m a tur e . W e r e vi e w de novo 1 th e d e n ia l o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w h e r e q u a lif ie d im m u n ityis a t is s u e , K R L v. Esta te o f Mo o re , 51 2 F . 3d 11 84 , 11 88 -89 (9th C i r. 20 08 ), and w e r ever se . 1 . W e h av e ju risd icti o n u n d er2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 to re v iew S teh r’s in te r lo c u to ry ap p e a l b e c au s e h is m o tio n a s s e rte d q u a lif ie d im m u n ity . W

i lki ns v. C i t yof O akland , 35 0 F . 3d 94 9, 95 1 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). A l tho ug h the di stri ctcourt3

d is m is s e d S te h r ’s m o tio n w ith o u t e x p r e s s ly d is c u s s in g th e q u a lif ie d im m u n ity q u e s tio n , it im p lic itlyd e n ie d th e q u a lif ie d im m u n ityc la im . G i ebel v. Sylvester , 244 F . 3d 1182, 1186 n. 6 ( 9th C i r . 2001) . E ve n w he r e , a s he r e , the r e a r e i s s ue s of fa cti n d i sput e, “ w e c an det erm i ne w hether the deni al of qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty w as approp ri at e by a ss um i ng thatthe vers i on of the m at er i al fa ct s a ss ert ed by [D ahl i a] i s c orre ct . ” Je

f f er s v . G om ez , 2 6 7 F .3 d 8 9 5 , 9 0 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . T ha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtde ni e d S t e hr ’ s m ot i on w i thoutpr e j udi c e doe s not defe atj uri sdi ct i on . U nd er B ehre ns v. P el let i er , 516 U . S . 299 ( 1996) , ade ni a l of s um m a ry j udgm e ntw i thoutpr e j udi c e i s s uf

f i c i e nt l y f i na l t o s upportj ur i s di c t i on o v e ra n in te r lo c u to ry ap p e a l, id. at30 7-08 , because the pu rpose of qual i fi ed i m m un i ty i s “ no tm er el y t o avo i d st andi ng tri al , bu tal so t o avo i d the bu rdens of s uc h p r e tr ia l m att er s a s di sc ov ery, ” i d. a t308 ( c i t i ng Mitc h e ll v . Fo rs y th , 4 7 2 U . S. 5 1 1 , 5 2 6 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ) ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . See a l so Moss v . U

. S. Secr et Serv i ce , 5 7 2 F .3 d 9 6 2 , 9 7 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( d e c lin in g to exer ci se j uri sdi ct i on ov eran i nt er l ocut ory app ea l on l y bec ause , un l i ke here, there w as no i m m i nentdi sc ov ery due t o a st ay ). 2 . S t e h ri s e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i ty b e c au s e , a s Dah l i ac o n c e d e s , we ha ve notpr e vi ous l y de c i de d the que s t i on of w he the rbe i ng pl a c e d on a d m in is tr a tiv e le a v e w ith p a y c o n s titu te s a n a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n . See4

L a ke s ide - Sc o tt v . Mu ltn o m a h C o u n ty , 556 F . 3d 797, 803 n. 7 ( 9th C i r . 2009) (dec l i ni ng t o rea ch the qu es t i on of w hether a dm i ni stra t i ve l ea ve const i tut ed an a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on) . D a hl i a ’ s purport e d r i ghtpr ot e c t i ng hi m f r om pl a c e m e nton a dm i ni s tr a t i ve l e a ve w a s thus not“ c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d” a tthe t i m e of th e c h a lle n g e d c o n d u c t. A s hc r of t v . al- Ki dd , 131 S . C t . 2074, 2080 ( 2011) ( quot i ng H ar low v . Fi t

z ge r land , 457 U . S . 800, 818 ( 1982) ) . I n l i ghtof ours i l e nc e , a nd the una ni m ous w e i ghtof

author i ty f

r om othe rj ur i s di c t i ons hol di ng tha ta dm i ni s tr a t i ve leav e d o es n o t co n stitu te an ad v er se em p lo ym en t actio n , th e c o n to u rs o f D ah li a’s p u rp o rte d r ig h t w e r e n o t s u f f ic ie n tlyc le a rth a t a n o f

f ic ia l in S te h r ’s p o s itio n w o u ld have “ un ders t oo d thatw hathe i s doi ng vi ol at es thatri gh t . ” I d. a t2083. RE V E RS E D.