Angelo Dahlia v. Tim Stehr

MEMORANDUM

Defendant Tim Stehr appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment on the ground that it was premature. We review de novo the denial of summary judgment where qualified immunity is at issue, KRL v. Estate of Moore, 512 F.3d 1184, 1188-89 (9th Cir.2008), and we reverse.

1. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review Stehr’s interlocutory appeal because his motion asserted qualified immunity. Wilkins v. City of Oakland, 350 F.3d 949, 951 (9th Cir.2003). Although the district court dismissed Stehr’s motion without expressly discussing the qualified immunity question, it implicitly denied the qualified immunity claim. Giebel v. Sylvester, 244 F.3d 1182 , 1186 n. 6 (9th Cir.2001). Even where, as here, there are issues of fact in dispute, “we can determine whether the denial of qualified immunity was appropriate by assuming that the version of the material facts asserted by [Dahlia] is correct.” Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 903 (9th Cir.2001).

That the district court denied Stehr’s motion without prejudice does not defeat jurisdiction. Under Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 , 116 S.Ct. 834 , 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996), a denial of…