jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity limited to “the purely legal issue whether the facts alleged . . . support a claim of clearly established law.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity limited to “the purely legal issue whether the facts alleged . . . support a claim of clearly established law.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES T. DAVIS, No. 18-17050
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01184-DAD-SAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JAMES A. YATES, Warden; MATTHEW
CATE, Secretary,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Defendants James A. Yates and Matthew Cate appeal from the district
court’s order denying them qualified immunity in plaintiff Charles T. Davis’s 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference claims. We have jurisdiction
over this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S. 511, 526-27 (1985). We review de novo the district court’s ruling on
qualified immunity. George v. Edholm, 752 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir. 2014). We
vacate and remand.
The district court determined that Yates and Cate were not entitled to
qualified immunity on Davis’s deliberate indifference claims. However, after the
district court’s order was entered, this court in Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218,
1229 (9th Cir. 2019), concluded that a prisoner’s “right to be free from heightened
exposure to Valley Fever spores” was not clearly established. Because the district
court did not have the benefit of the decision in Hines when it entered its order, we
vacate the denial of qualified immunity as to Davis’s deliberate indifference claims
against Yates and Cate, and remand with instructions to grant Yates and Cate’s
motion to dismiss.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Davis’s contentions unrelated to the denial
of qualified immunity for Yates and Cate because they are outside the scope of this
appeal. See Alston v. Read, 663 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011) (jurisdiction over
interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity limited to “the purely
legal issue whether the facts alleged . . . support a claim of clearly established
law.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
2
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
3