Munoz

MEMORANDUM **

1. Because this interlocutory appeal is based in part on questions of law relating to officers Curtis and Trushenski’s qualified immunity, we have jurisdiction to re *502 view the district court’s denial of their summary judgment motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ; Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). Where disputed facts exist, we “assum[e] that the version of ... material facts asserted by [Munoz, the non-moving party,] is correct.” Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 903 (9th Cir.2001).

We do not reach appellants’ argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that Munoz failed to produce authenticated, admissible evidence to support his assertions. Our jurisdiction “is limited to questions of law” and does not extend to “disputed issues of material fact” or questions about “evidentiary sufficiency at summary judgment.” Id. at 903-04 (internal quotation marks omitted). We leave the authentication and admissibility questions, and Munoz’s response that this argument was waived, to the district court.

2. The district court did not err in denying Curtis and Trushenski qualified immunity. Taking the facts alleged by Munoz as true,…