C.M

MEMORANDUM

Los Angeles Sheriffs Department Deputy Patrina Smith brings an interlocutory appeal of the district court’s order denying her motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity. Plaintiff-appellee, C.M.V., alleges that while he was incarcerated at Pitchess Detention Center, Smith violated his constitutional rights by failing to protect him from a violent assault at the hands of other inmates. To survive summary judgment in his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , C.M.V. must show that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Smith was deliberately indifferent to a “substantial risk of serious harm.” See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the collateral order doctrine. See Brewster v. Bd. of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist., 149 F.3d 971 , 976 (9th Cir.1998). “[Ajppellate jurisdiction over a summary judgment denial of qualified immunity is limited to reviewing the ‘purely legal’ issue of ‘whether the facts alleged [by the plaintiff] support a claim of violation of clearly established law.’” Id. (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 528 n. 9, 105 S.Ct.…