Navarro

facts, we do not recount them here. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

1. On the excessive force claim, this court dismisses Lubey’s challenge to

the district court’s determination that a reasonable jury could find for Navarro.

When considering appeals challenging the denial of qualified immunity, this court

“lack[s] jurisdiction” over arguments that “the evidence is insufficient to raise a

genuine issue of material fact.” Est. of Anderson v. Marsh, 985 F.3d 726, 731 (9th

Cir. 2021).

Here, Lubey asks this court to make an impermissible evidence-sufficiency

determination. In challenging the district court’s conclusion that “a reasonable

jury could find that Lubey committed a constitutional violation,” Lubey resurfaces

matters the district court had already decided were genuine issues of material fact:

whether Navarro shoved Lubey and whether Lubey warned Navarro. This court

lacks jurisdiction to hear Lubey’s argument.

And the video footage exception permitting the court to instead “view[] the

facts in the light depicted by the videotape” is inapplicable. Scott v. Harris, 550

U.S. 372, 381 (2007). Where the body camera footage captures neither the alleged

shove…