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 a nd 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 S H E IL A C O N A T S E R , i nd i vi du al l y a nd as S pe c i a l A dm i ni s tr a t orof the E s t a t e of P h i l l i p R o g e rC o n a s t e r ; AL L AN CO N A STER, P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l ees, v. N O RTH LA S V EG A S PO LI CE DEPART M ENT; EDM ON D FI NI ZI E, L i e u t e n a n t ; S MI T H; P E T E R S MI R GA , O f f i c e r ; CI TY O F N O RTH LA S V EG A S, D efen d an t s - A p p el l an t s. N o. 09- 17712 D C N o . 2 : 0 6 c v - 1 2 3 6 PM P LRL 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 orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da P hi l i p M . P r o, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i t t e d J ul y 18, 2011 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o r n ia 

# FI LED AU G 02 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he H onor a bl e J e d S . R a kof f , S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f or ** the S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof N e w Y or k, s i t t i ng by de s i gna t i on.

2 B e f or e : T A S H I M A a nd R A W L I N S O N , C i r c ui tJ udge s , a nd R A K O F F , S e ni or D i stri ctJudg e. * * D e f e nda nt s - appe l l a nt s P e t e rS m i r ga a nd E dm ond F i ni z i e , pol i c e of f i c e r s of the C i ty of N orth L as V egas P ol i ce D epar tm ent , shotand k i l l ed P hi l l i p C on at se r ou t si de of hi s m ot her’ s hom e a ft erre spon di ng t o a re po rtfr om hi s m ot her that C o n atse r w as v io len t, su icid al, an d w an ted th e p o li ce to k il l h im . C o n atse r’s p a r e n ts s u e d u n d e r4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 f o r , in te ra lia , v io la tio n s o f th e irs o n ’s F o u r th A m endm entri gh tno tt o b e s ubj ec t ed t o exces si ve force . D ef endant s now appeal the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of thei r m ot i on s f or sum m ary j ud gm enton qu al i fi ed i m m uni ty gr ounds . W e di s m i s s the appe a l f orl a c k of

j ur i s di c t i on, be c a us e i ttur ns o n fact -rel at ed i ssu es. V i ew i ng the fa ct s i n t he l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o p l ai nt i ff s, the di stri ctcourt a s s um e d f

ors um m a r y j udgm e ntpurpos e s tha tC ona t s e r“ appe a r e d c a l m , di d not att ac k t he offi ce rs , and d i d n otpo se a threa tt o t he offi ce rs atany t i m e. ” T he court e xpl a i ne d tha t“ P hi l l i p w oul d ha ve be e n a thr e a ti f he c ha r ge d the of

f i c e r s w i th the kn i fe , ho w ever , [hi s nei gh bo rs ] V er on a a nd C ort ez t es t i f[ i ed] P hi l l i p d i d n otatt ac k th e o f f ic e r s a t a n y tim e .” T h ese facts l ed th e d i stri ctco u rtt o rej ectd efen d an t s’ qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty de f

e ns e : “ [ I ] f

P hi l l i p di d notc ha r ge the of f i c e r s a s a ve r r e d by3

th e n ei g h b o rs, a reaso n ab l e o ffi cer w o u l d h av e k n o w n th atsh o o t i n g P h i l l i p j u st beca use he w as ho l di ng a kni fe w as a vi ol at i on of cl ea rl y e st abl i shed l aw . ” O n thi s appe a l , de f

e nda nt s a r gue tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d be c a us e the evi dence ca nn otsupp ortthe i nfer ence thatC on at se r never att ac ked t hem . T hey c ont e nd tha tthe ne i ghbor s ’ “ a s s e r t i on tha tP hi l l i p C ona t s e rne ve rthr e a t e ne d the offi ce rs i s c on tra di ct ed by i nd ependentevi dence, ” a nd thatthe di stri ctcourt there fore “ erre d i n acc ept i ng [the nei gh bo rs ’ ] vers i on of event s. ” W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o d ec i de thi s i ss ue. S um m ary j ud gm entorders denyi ng a qual i fi ed i m m un i ty def

ense ar e i m m edi at el y app ea l abl e onl y i f they pre se nt“ abstra cti ss ues o f la w ,” n o t “

f act -r el at ed di sput e[ s] abou tthe pretri al re cord. ” John son v. Jones , 5 1 5 U .S . 3 0 4 , 3 0 7 , 3 1 7 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to r e vi e w s uc h s um m a r y j udgm e ntor de r s t o the e xt e ntthe y de c i de tha t“ a gi ve n s e tof fa ct s vi ol at es cl ea rl y e st abl i shed l aw , ” butno tt o t he ext entthey dec i de that“ an issu e o f f ac t i s ‘g en u in e.’” Id . a t 3 1 9 ; s e e M a r o p u l o s v . Cn t

y . o f L. A. , 560 F . 3d 974, 975 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( “ [ A ] n or de rde ny i ng qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty on the g r o u n d th a t a g e n u in e is s u e o f m a te r ia l f

a c t e x is ts is n o t a f

in a l, im m e d ia te ly ap p e a la b le o r d e r .” ) ; C ol l i ns v . J or dan , 11 0 F . 3d 13 63 , 13 70 (9th C i r. 19 97 ). Sc o tt v . H

a r r is , 550 U . S . 372 ( 2007) , a nd W i lki nson v. T

orre s , 610 F . 3d 546 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) , r e lie d o n b y d e f e n d a n ts , d o n o t a f

f e c t th e a n a ly s is . A lth o u g h b o th4

ca se s r ea ched fac t -r el at ed i ss ues on i nt er l ocut ory app ea l of the deni al of qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty a tthe sum m ary j ud gm entst age, nei ther c as e a dd re ss ed the j uri sdi ct i on al defe ctthatsuch i ss ues pot ent i al l y r ai se un der J ohns on . I n d e e d , Sc o tt di d not m ent i on j uri sdi ct i on atal l . T hu s, nei ther Sc o tt no r W i lki ns on e xpa nds our ju r is d ic tio n . Se e A r i

z . C hr is t i an Sc h. T

ui t i on O r g. v . W i nn , 131 S . C t . 1436, 1448 ( 2011) ( “ W he n a pot e nt i a l j ur i s di c t i ona l de f e c ti s ne i the rnot e d nordi s c us s e d i n a fe dera l deci si on , the deci si on do es no tst and for the prop osi t i on thatno defe ct e x is te d .” ) ; c

f. O r t i zv . J or dan , 131 S . C t . 884, 891 ( 2011) ( r e a f f i r m i ng J ohns on w i thoutm e nt i oni ng Sc o tt ora c know l e dgi ng a ny e xc e pt i ons t o J ohns on ) ( “ [ I ] ns t a nt appeal i s notavai l abl e . . . w hen t he di stri ctcourtdet erm i nes thatfa ctual i ss ues g e n u in e ly in d is p u te p r e c lu d e s u m m a r y a d ju d ic a tio n .” ) . B ecau se w e l ack ap p el l at e j u ri sd i ct i o n , th i s ap p eal i s D I SM I SSED .