Opinion ID: 773203
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 12 Denials of summary judgment typically are not appealable. Where the ground for denying summary judgment, however, is that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity, we have jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal on certain, limited grounds. Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1195 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 312 (1996)). We may review the district court's order denying summary judgment only if the issue appealed concern[s], not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but, rather, whether or not certain given facts show[ ] a violation of `clearly established' law. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 311 (1995) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 (1985)). For purposes of this limited inquiry, we assume the version of the material facts asserted by the non-moving party to be correct. Schwenk, 204 F.3d at 1195 (citing Behrens, 516 U.S. at 312; Liston v. County of Riverside , 120 F.3d 965, 977 (9th Cir. 1997)). 13 We may not consider a defendant's appeal to the extent that it challenges the district court's finding of a triable issue of fact. Johnson, 515 U.S. at 313 ([T]he District Court's determination that the summary judgment record in this case raised a genuine issue of fact concerning [the alleged constitutional violation] was not a `final decision' within the meaning of the relevant [jurisdictional] statute.). With these principles in mind, we consider whether the district court erred in denying qualified immunity to the defendants.