Opinion ID: 735830
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 3 Although our jurisdiction generally is limited to appeals from final judgments of the district courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949), an otherwise unappealable order is considered 'final' and therefore appropriate for immediate review if it conclusively determines the disputed question, resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits, and would be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Armendariz v. Penman, 75 F.3d 1311, 1316 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) (citations omitted). 4 Denial of a motion for summary judgment that is based on qualified immunity is within the collateral order doctrine and thus immediately appealable. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985); Armendariz, 75 F.3d at 1316. The scope of such an interlocutory appeal, however, is limited: although we have jurisdiction to review the district court's decision that the defendants' alleged conduct violated clearly established law, Armendariz 75 F.3d at 1317, we lack jurisdiction over 'questions about whether or not a record demonstrates a genuine issue of fact for trial,'  Chateaubriand v. Gaspard, 97 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir.1996) (quoting Johnson v. Jones, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 2158 (1995)). Thus, [t]he only appealable issue 'is a purely legal one: whether the facts alleged ... support a claim of violation of clearly established law.'  Id. at 1221 (quoting Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 528 n. 9). 5 Defendants seek review of the district court's determination that the conduct attributed to them by the plaintiff, if proven at trial, would violate clearly established law. This issue is squarely within Mitchell, and thus we turn to the merits of defendants' appeal.