James Denby v. David Engstrom

facts, and we recount them only as necessary to resolve the issues on appeal.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 for interlocutory orders

denying qualified immunity, Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985), but

only “[t]o the extent the district court’s order denies summary judgment on purely

legal issues,” Foster v. City of Indio, 908 F.3d 1204, 1210 (9th Cir. 2018) (per

1 We previously affirmed the denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. Denby v. Engstrom, No. 20-16319, 2021 WL 2885846 (9th Cir. July 9, 2021).

2 curiam). Within those jurisdictional confines, this Court “review[s] de novo the

denial of a motion for summary judgment predicated on qualified immunity.”

Felarca v. Birgeneau, 891 F.3d 809, 815 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.

1. If disputed facts are viewed in Denby’s favor, a jury could decide that

defendants used excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments. “[O]fficers executing a search warrant occasionally ‘must damage

property in order to perform their duty.’” Liston v. County of Riverside, 120 F.3d

965, 979 (9th Cir.), as amended (Oct. 9, 1997) (quoting Dalia v. United…