Bollinger

MEMORANDUM **

Edward Bollinger appeals from a jury verdict granting qualified immunity to defendants, who were members of the Oregon State Board of Parole immediately before and shortly after Bollinger’s release from state custody in 1994. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

*345 The district court did not err in declining to strike defendants’ affirmative defense of qualified immunity, because Bollinger invoked the law of the case doctrine through a motion in limine before evidence had been taken at trial. See In re Rainbow Magazine, 77 F.3d 278, 281 (9th Cir.1996) (recognizing that the law of the case doctrine does not apply if substantially different evidence is adduced at a subsequent trial). Our two prior memorandum dispositions held only that defendants were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of qualified immunity, not that Bollinger was himself conclusively entitled to such a judgment. See Tribble v. Gardner, 860 F.2d 321, 328 (9th Cir.1988) (noting that defendants could develop more evidence between denial of summary judgment and trial to support their defense of qualified immunity at trial).

The district court did not err in…