Opinion ID: 737952
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 11 Before deciding the merits, we must also dispense with a jurisdictional issue. Because this case comes to us on a denial of summary judgment and before discovery was conducted, the jurisdiction of this court is somewhat limited. Carmen correctly notes that several issues raised by defendants are not properly before this court. We will not detail each argument that defendants impermissibly bring before us; however, all pertain to whether Carmen can prove the merits of his claims. 12 [A] defendant entitled to invoke a qualified-immunity defense, may not appeal a district court's summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a 'genuine' issue of fact for trial. Johnson v. Jones, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 2159 (1995). Thus, to the extent the district court denied summary judgment on disputed questions of fact, we have no jurisdiction. 13 Ordinarily this court only has jurisdiction over final decisions of the district courts; however, the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order rule. Armendariz v. Penman, 75 F.3d 1311, 1316 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc ). Thus, while we cannot address the question of whether material questions of fact exist, this court has jurisdiction to decide whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for their conduct based upon the facts that were before the district court. Accordingly, only those arguments by defendants that pertain to the legal questions surrounding qualified immunity will be addressed, and our review will be limited to the issue of whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant[s] were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions. Id. at 1316-17 (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 (1985)).