Clemmons

MEMORANDUM *

The County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (col *488 lectively, the Sheriff) appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment based upon their claim of governmental immunity under California law. We reverse and remand.

Jerome Leslie Clemmons brought this action 1 against the Sheriff after Clemmons had been held in jail from June 28, 2004 to July 19, 2004, upon an order of the Superi- or Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.

(1) At the threshold, Clemmons argues that we do not have jurisdiction to hear the Sheriffs appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , or otherwise. 2 We disagree. Although it is true that, in general, our jurisdiction only extends to hearing direct appeals from final orders, a classic example of the kind of order that is treated as final is an order denying a claim of immunity. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 524-27 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2814-16 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985); Armendariz v. Penman, 75 F.3d 1311, 1316-17 (9th Cir.1996); see also Scott v. Harris, - U.S. -, - n. 2, 127 S.Ct. 1769 , 1773 n. 2, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). That applies to assertions of immunity under…

dissenting:

For twenty-three days, the sheriff did not trouble himself to take Jerome Clemmons’s complaint seriously. The California Supreme Court has recognized that the sheriff must exercise reasonable diligence when carrying out a court order. See Vallindras v. Mass. Bonding & Ins. Co., 42 Cal.2d 149, 156 , 265 P.2d 907 (1954). Even an “ordinarily intelligent and informed layman,” id. at 154 , 265 P.2d 907 , could see that Jerome Clemmons was being detained pursuant to an order naming *490 a different person: James Clemmons. I dissent.