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.

** Th e H o n o r ab l e Ri c h a r d D . Cu d a h y , Se n i o rCi r c u i tJ u d g e f o rth e U . S. C ourtof A ppe a l s f

orthe S e ve nth C i r c ui t , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

1 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 RA M O N O BA S, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. C OU NT Y O F MONT E R E Y; C ON AN H I CK EY ; BRY A N H O SK I N S, D efen d an t s - A p p el l an t s. N o. 11- 15617 D. C . No . 5 : 0 9 - c v - 0 5 5 4 0 - L HK 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 N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia L uc y K oh, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r4, 2012 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: T R O T T , R A W L IN S O N , an d C U D A H Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. ** 

# FI LED JAN 07 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

C ona n H i c ke y ( H i c ke y ) a nd B ry a n H os ki ns ( H os ki ns ) appe a l f r om the deni al of thei r m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm entbase d o n thei r a ss ert i on of qu al i fi ed i m m u n i ty.

1 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s r e je c tio n o f

aq u a lif ie d im m u n ity d e f

e n s e is im m e d ia te ly ap p e a lab le . See W i lki nson v. T

orres , 61 0 F . 3d 54 6, 54 9-50 (9th C i r. 20 10 ).

2 . T h e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o terr i n fi n d i n g th atd i sp u t ed fact s i n th i s case w er e m at er i al t o the qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty anal ys i s. H i ckeyand H oski ns cont end that E m e r ge nc y M e di c a l T e c hni c i a ns ( E M T s ) i nf orm e d the m tha tO ba s w a s c l e a r e d f or transpo rtvi a pol i ce crui se r. T he exam i ni ng E M T , M i ke V i nd hu rs t(V i nd hu rs t ), c ount e r s tha the r e c om m e nde d t o of f i c e r s tha tO ba s be pl a c e d i n c - s pi ne prec aut i on s and t aken t o the ho spi t al vi a a m bu l ance . T he re com m endat i on w as gi ve n t o agr oup of

“ 2 or3 de put i e s . ” A l though V i nhur s tc oul d noti de nt i f y the depu t i es w i th p art i cul ar i ty, H i ckeyand H oski ns w er e i n the vi ci ni ty and adm i tt ed spea ki ng w i th E M T s on the sc ene. Indeed, the offi ce rs conceded i n the di stri ct courtthati f are com m endat i on had b ee n m ade t o transpo rtO bas i n an am bu l ance ,3

fa i l ure t o d o so w ou l d am ou ntt o exces si ve force i n v i ol at i on of cl earl y e st abl i shed la w . C o u n s e l c o n f

irm e d th is c o n c e s s io n d u r in g o r a l a r g u m e n t.

3 . O b a s ’ s t a t e l a w b a tt e ry c l a i ms a r e a n a l y z e d u n d e rth e s a me f r a m e w o rk , a n d r e q u ir e th e s a m e p r o o f , a s h is s e c tio n 1 9 8 3 e x c e s s iv e f o r c e c la im . Se e Sam an v . R obbi ns , 173 F . 3d 1150, 1157 n. 6 ( 9th C i r . 1999) ( tr e a t i ng s e c t i on 1983 a nd s t a t e l a w ba tt e ry c l a i m s a s s y nony m ous ) . T he r e f or e , the s a m e que s t i on of m at er i al fa cti dent i fi ed abov e pre cl ud es sum m ary j ud gm enton the st at e l aw b a tte ry c la im s , a s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r ly c o n c lu d e d . 4. D i s c r e t i ona ry i m m uni ty f orba tt e ry unde rC a l i f

orni aG ove rnm e nt C ode s e c t i on 820. 2 i s una va i l abl e be c aus e H i c ke y a nd H os ki ns a r e a c c us e d of u s in g e x c e s s iv e f

o r c e . Se e B lanke nhorn v . C i t y of O r ange , 4 8 5 F .3 d 4 6 3 , 4 8 7 ( 9 th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) (n o t i n g th atsect i o n 8 2 0 . 2 “ d o es n o tap p l y t o o ffi cers w h o u se un re as on abl e f

orce i n m aki ng an arre st ”) (c i t at i on s om i tt ed).

5 . W e la c kju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f im m u n ity pu rs uantt o C al i forni a C i vi l C od e s ec t i on 33 33 . 3 for O bas’ st at e l aw negl i gence c la im s . S e c tio n 3 3 3 3 .3 c o n f e r s im m u n ity f

r o m d a m a g e s , n o t im m u n ity f r o m s u it.4

T here fore , deni al of such i m m un i ty i s noti m m edi at el y app ea l abl e a s acol l at er al o r d e r . Se e L i be ral v . Es tr ada , 632 F . 3d 1064, 1074 ( 9th C i r . 2011) ( “ [ T ] he avai l abi l i ty of an app ea l depend s on w hether, un der s ta te la w , th e im m u n ity f unc t i ons a s a n i m m uni ty f r om s ui toronl y a s ade f e ns e t o l i abi l i ty . ” ) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt ed) ( em ph as i s i n the ori gi nal ). A FFI R M ED .