facts, they are entitled to qualified immunity. See Avila v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 758

F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Arguments not raised clearly and distinctly in

the opening brief are waived.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Both in their

briefing and at oral argument, defendants merely dispute the circumstances

attendant to Jeanetta’s encounter with the police and contend that she posed an

immediate threat to the officers based on their version of the facts. But “a

defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal a

district court’s summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether

or not the pretrial record sets forth a ‘genuine’ issue of fact for trial.” Johnson v.

Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319–20 (1995); see also id. at 311 (describing Mitchell as

allowing interlocutory appeals when “the issue appealed concerned, not which

3 facts the parties might be able to prove, but, rather, whether or not certain given

facts showed a violation of ‘clearly established’ law”). And where, as here, an

appellant-officer’s opening brief “lapse[s] into disputing [the plaintiffs’] version of

the facts” and does “not advance[] an argument as to why the law is not clearly

established that takes the facts in the light most favorable to” the plaintiffs, “[w]e

will not do [the] appellant[s’s] work for [them], either by manufacturing [their]

legal arguments, or by combing the record on [their] behalf for factual support.”

George v. Morris, 736 F.3d 829, 837 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks

omitted) (citing Adams v. Speers, 473 F.3d 989, 990, 991 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The

exception to the normal rule prohibiting an appeal before a trial works only if the

appellant concedes the facts and seeks judgment on the law.”)).

Addressing the defendants’ purely factual disputes with the district court’s

qualified-immunity determination is beyond the limited scope of our appellate

jurisdiction.1 E.g., Isayeva, 872 F.3d at 945–46; George, 736 F.3d at 834–36

(“Any decision by the district court ‘that the parties’ evidence presents genuine

1 The video and audio recordings, which omit key portions of Jeanetta’s encounter with defendant police officers, including her final actions before being shot, do not blatantly contradict or utterly discredit the district court’s determination that material disputes of fact exist. See Scott, 550 U.S. at 380–81; see also Vos v. City of Newport Beach, 892 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir. 2018); Estate of Lopez ex rel. Lopez v. Gelhaus, 871 F.3d 998, 1008 (9th Cir. 2017). 4 issues of material fact is categorically unreviewable on interlocutory appeal.’”

(quoting Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009))).

Our disposition of defendants’ appeal on forfeiture grounds does not prevent

them from “raising . . . qualified immunity at a subsequent stage in the litigation,

such as in a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law.” George, 736 F.3d at

837 n.12.

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

5