Opinion ID: 3036753
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Interlocutory Review and Standard of Review

Text: [1] We do not ordinarily have jurisdiction to review a denial of a motion for summary judgment because such a denial is not a final judgment. However, we do have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals in suits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or brought as so-called “Bivens” actions, if the denial of summary judgment is based on a rejection of a 3276 KOHLRAUTZ v. OILMEN PARTICIPATION CORP. defense of official immunity from suit. See, e.g., Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1195 (9th Cir. 2000) (suit brought under § 1983); Lee v. Gregory, 363 F.3d 931, 932 (9th Cir. 2004) (suit brought directly under the Fourth Amendment pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Narcotics Bureau, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)). Although neither the Supreme Court nor this circuit has had occasion to uphold interlocutory appeals in suits where official immunity is asserted as a defense to a state-law cause of action, we believe that the principle allowing interlocutory review in official immunity cases applies more broadly than merely to actions under federal law. See, e.g., Will v. Hallock, 126 S. Ct. 952, 958 (2006) (stating without qualification that “orders rejecting absolute immunity . . . and qualified immunity” are “immediately appealable”). We therefore hold that we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Our review is limited to issues of law and “does not extend to claims in which the determination of [official] immunity depends on disputed issues of material fact.” Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach, 341 F.3d 939, 942 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To the degree the facts are in dispute, we assume the facts for which Oilmen has provided evidentiary support are correct in determining whether the district court should have denied Weber’s motion for summary judgment. See id.