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 RAND Y REAL, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J AM ES W ALKER, W a r d e n ; T. V E N T IM IG L IA , C o rrect i o n al O ffi cer; J. STEW A RT, Co rr e c t i o n a l O f f i c e r ; R. P A R R IL L A , C orre ct i on al O ff i ce r; E V E R E T T W . F IS H E R , C orre ct i on al O ff i ce r; S C O T T S . K IS S E R , C orre ct i on al O ff i ce r; G . W IL L IA M S , C orre ct i on al O ff i ce r; R . R A M O S , C orre ct i on al O ff i ce r; K . P O O L , C o rr e c t i o n a l O f f i c e r ; K . M. P OO L , C o rr e c t i o n a l Of f i c e r ; N. G R A N N IS , C orre ct i on al O ff i ce r; C AL I F ORNI A D E P AR T ME NT OF C OR R E C T I ON S AN D R E HA B I L I T AT I ON , D efen d an t s - A p p el l an t s. N o. 12- 16459 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 3 2 7 3 - G EBK JN 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 G a r l a nd E . B urr e l l , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng 

# FI LED MA Y28 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he H onor abl e A l ge non L . M a rbl e y , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f or ** the S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof O hi o, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

2 A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a y14, 2013 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: M cK E O W N and W A T F O R D , C i rc ui tJudg es , and M A R B L E Y , D i stri ct Judg e. ** D efen d an t s ap p eal fro m th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s o rd er d i sm i ssi n g p l ai n t i ff’ s fi rst am ended com pl ai ntfor f ai l ure t o st at e acl ai m . T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed pl ai nt i ff l ea ve t o am end a subsetof the cl ai m s and defe rr ed rul i ng on defe nd ant s’ qu al i fi ed im m u n ityd e f

e n s e u n til p la in tif

f f ile d h is s e c o n d a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. D e f e n d a n ts c o n te n d th a t w e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e rb e c au s e it im p lic itlyd e n ie d th e irq u a lif ie d im m u n ityd e f

e n s e . U nd er Mille rv . G a m m ie , 3 3 5 F . 3 d 8 8 9 , 8 9 4 - 9 5 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( e n b a n c ) , we l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w a n or de rtha tdoe s notde nya n i m m uni tyde f e ns e , but m e r e l y de f

e r s rul i ng on i t . I n Mille r , the di s tr i c tc ourtde f e rr e d rul i ng on the absol ut e i m m un i ty def

ense and p erm i tt ed l i m i t ed di sc ov ery t o b e c on du ct ed on that d efen se. W e n o n eth el ess co n cl u d ed th atw e l ack ed ap p el l at e j u ri sd i ct i o n b ecau se the de f e rr a l or de rw a s “ notc onc l us i ve ” a nd di d not“ de nythe c l a i m e d e xi s t e nc e of i m m un i ty. ” I

d. G iv e n th e m o r e s u b s ta n tia l b u r d e n s to w h ic h th e d e f e n d a n ts in Mille r w e r e s ubj e c t e d, de f e nda nt s he r e c a nnotc r e di bl ya r gue tha tthe bur de n of3

ha vi ng t o r e s pond t o as e c ond a m e nde d c om pl a i ntj us t i f i e s a n e xc e pt i on t o Mille r ’s ru le . See Moss v . U

ni ted Stat es Secr et

Serv . , 57 2 F . 3d 96 2, 97 3-74 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). D e f e n d a n ts c o n te n d th a t Mille ris d is tin g u is h ab le b e c au s e th e ab s o lu te im m u n ityd e f

e n s e th e r e c o u ld n o t b e r e s o lv e d w ith o u t f u rth e rf a c tu a l d e v e lo p m e n t, w h er ea s th e q u alified im m u n ity d ef en se h er e c an b e r es o lv ed b as ed o n p lain ti ff’s ow n ve r s i on of

the f a c t s . A l though i ti s true tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourti n Mille r de f e rr e d rul i ng be c aus e i tbe l i e ve d f urthe rf a c tua l de ve l opm e ntw a s r e qui r e d, our j ur i s di c t i ona l hol di ng di d notde pe nd on the s pe c i f i c r e a s oni ng unde r l y i ng the deci si on t o d ef

er . R ather, w e f

ou nd j uri sdi ct i on l ac ki ng base d o n the broader r a t i ona l e tha ta n or de rde f e rr i ng a n i m m uni tyrul i ng doe s notc onc l us i ve l yr e s ol ve th e d e f e n s e a n d th u s c a n n o t b e im m e d ia te lyap p e a le d . See Mi l ler , 335 F . 3d a t894- 95. D e f

e nda nt s ’ r e l i a nc e on c a s e s i n w hi c h qua l i f i e d i m m uni tyw a s i m pl i c i t l y or e f f e c tiv e lyd e n ie d is m is p la c e d . Se e, e . g. , Cha vez v . U ni ted Stat es , 683 F . 3d 1102, 1107- 08 ( 9th C i r . 2012) . T he c onc e rn i n thos e c a s e s w a s tha tthe e f f e c tof the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ru lin g ( o rr e f u s a l to ru le ) w a s to a llo w th e a c tio n to p r o c e e d , w ith ope n- e nde d di s c ove ry , t o s um m a ryj udgm e ntortr i a l . N o s uc h c onc e rn i s pr e s e nt h er e. D ef

en d an ts ac tu ally p re v ailed in o b tain in g d ism issa l o f a ll o f p lain ti ff’s4

cl ai m s, and the ac t i on w as , atw orstfor def endant s, on ho l d p endi ng the fi l i ng of a s e c o n d a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. DI S MI S S E D.