# Ronnie Parham v. City of West Covina

> District Court, C.D. California · September 23, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10634995

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** September 23, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10634995

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 RONNIE PARHAM, Case No. 2:21-cv-09114-FLA (GJSx)

12 Plaintiff,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
13 v. ONE OR MORE CLAIMS SHOULD
NOT BE STAYED PENDING APPEAL
14 CITY OF WEST COVINA, et al.,
OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ISSUES
15 Defendants. [DKT. 72]
16

17
18 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
19 On August 21, 2024, Defendants Officer N. Robles, Officer Carlos Gonzalez,
20 Officer A. Hernandez, and Officer Matthew Muñoz (collectively, “Defendants”) filed
21 a notice of appeal (“Notice of Appeal”), Dkt. 72, from the court’s order denying
22 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, including on the issue of qualified
23 immunity, Dkt. 71.
24 “Ordinarily a denial of a motion for summary judgment is not a final order and
25 thus is not appealable.” Liberal v. Estrada, 632 F.3d 1064, 1073–74 (9th Cir. 2011)
26 (cleaned up). “[H]owever, a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity,
27 to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’ within the
28
1 meaning of [28 U.S.C.] § 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.” Id.
2 (cleaned up) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985)).
3 The court of appeals, however, does not have jurisdiction where the appeal is
4 based on disagreement with a district court’s interpretation of facts. Liberal, 632 F.3d
5 at 1074; see also Knox v. Southwest Airlines, 124 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir.1997)
6 (“[The court of appeals] ha[s] jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from the denial
7 of qualified immunity where the appeal focuses on whether the defendants violated a
8 clearly established law given the undisputed facts, while we do not have jurisdiction
9 over an interlocutory appeal that focuses on whether there is a genuine dispute about
10 the underlying facts.”).
11 As the Ninth Circuit explained in Est. of Anderson v. Marsh, 985 F.3d 726, 731
12 (9th Cir. 2021):
13
[W]hether jurisdiction is lacking … ultimately turns on the nature of
14 the defendant’s argument on appeal. If the defendant argues only
that the evidence is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material
15
fact, we lack jurisdiction. If the defendant’s appeal raises purely
16 legal questions, however, such as whether his alleged conduct
violated clearly established law, we may review those issues.
17
18 (emphasis added). Thus, in Anderson, because the defendant’s interlocutory appeal
19 challenged “only the district court’s conclusion that there [was] sufficient evidence to
20 create a genuine dispute as to the factual question that will determine whether
21 [defendant]’s use of force was reasonable,” the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction.
22 Id. at 728.
23 Additionally, the filing of a notice of appeal “confers jurisdiction on the court
24 of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case
25 involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58
26 (1982); see also Peck v. Cnty. of Orange, 528 F. Supp. 3d 1100, 1107 (C.D. Cal.
27 2021) (staying § 1983 claims pending resolution of qualified immunity appeal as the
28 court “no longer ha[d] jurisdiction” over these claims).
1 Last, a district court may certify an appeal is frivolous or waived, and, if the
2 || court issues such a certification, the appeal does not divest the court of jurisdiction to
3 | continue the proceedings on the issues involved in the appeal. Chuman v. Wright, 960
4 | F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992); Peck v. Cnty. of Orange, 528 F. Supp. 3d 1100, 1104
5 | (C.D. Cal. 2021)
6 Accordingly, the court ORDERS the parties to show cause in writing within
7 | fourteen (14) days of this Order why one or more claims should not be stayed
8 || pursuant to Defendants’ Notice of Appeal. The parties should address in detail the
9 | issues on appeal, whether they involve a question of law or a disagreement with the
10 | court’s interpretation of facts, and whether the court should certify as frivolous one or
11 | more of the issues on appeal.
12
13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15 | Dated: September 23, 2024
16 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10634995. Public record. Not legal advice.