Titus
Titus v. County of Los Angeles
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
These appeals 1 arise out of the misiden-tification and wrongful arrest and incarceration of Darryl Titus. Detective Rodney Roberts appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Titus appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of complaining witnesses, Edna An-dujo and Jose Delgado, and their employers, East 35th Street Apartments, L.P. and G&K Management Company. We dismiss Roberts’s appeal for lack of jurisdic *212 tion. We have jurisdiction over Titus’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Andujo and Delgado on all claims except the tort of malicious prosecution.
1. Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss Roberts’s appeal of the denial of his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Though “the denial of summary judgment is not ordinarily an appealable order, we have jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory appeal when ... the ground for the motion is qualified immunity.” Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 903 (9th Cir.2001). However, Roberts failed to timely appeal the February 9, 2007, order in which the district court explicitly rejected…