Case Name: Melvin MUNIR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THOMAS, Sergeant, Defendant-Appellant, and Martinez, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-06
Citations: 471 F. App'x 570
Docket Number: No. 09-15727
Parties: Melvin MUNIR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THOMAS, Sergeant, Defendant-Appellant, and Martinez, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 570–571

Head Matter:
Melvin MUNIR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THOMAS, Sergeant, Defendant-Appellant, and Martinez, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants.
No. 09-15727.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed March 6, 2012.
Melvin Munir, Inglewood, CA, pro se.
James Flynn, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendan1>Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Thomas, a housing sergeant at California Medical Facility, appeals from the district court's order denying him qualified immunity in plaintiff Munir's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. We dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
We lack jurisdiction to consider this interlocutory appeal because "an order deny ing qualified immunity on the ground that a genuine issue of material fact exists is not a final, immediately appealable order." Maropulos v. County of Los Angeles, 560 F.3d 974, 975 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam), citing Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 314-15, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995). The district court denied qualified immunity to Thomas after determining that there were genuine disputes of material fact as to whether Thomas was deliberately indifferent to Munir's medical needs, and that those facts, if proven, would establish a violation of Munir's clearly established Eighth Amendment rights. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.