# Jerry Lum v. County of San Joaquin

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · August 4, 2014 · 584 F. App'x 449

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9802342

## Case

- **Full name:** Jerry LUM, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Jeremy Lum and Dorothea Timmons, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Jeremy Lum, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN; Et Al., Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 4, 2014
- **Citations:** 584 F. App'x 449
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Smith
- **Judges:** Fernandez, Smith, Christen
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 2 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/9802342

## Opinion text

N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Our memorandum disposition represents the correct manner in which to decide all of the issues therein except that part determining that we have jurisdiction to decide the Fourteenth Amendment claim qualified immunity issues. There is no question that the district court order only addressed the merits of the Fourteenth Amendment question: The district court did not apply qualified immunity standards. Thus, we cannot determine qualified immunity as to the Fourteenth Amendment claims and should dismiss these claims. See Liberal v. Estrada, 632 F.3d 1064, 1074 (9th Cir.2011); Huskey v. City of San Jose, 204 F.3d 893, 905 (9th Cir.2000). There is no precedent authorizing jurisdiction on the basis that the district court believed it had decided an issue. One only has to review the district court opinion to reach this conclusion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9802342. Public record. Not legal advice.