Dante Pattison v. Keith Benson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 2, 2025
• Docket: 23-15870
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 2 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANTE HANALEI PATTISON, No. 23-15870

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00287-MMD-CSD v.

KEITH BENSON; et al., MEMORANDUM *

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 6, 2025 Las Vegas, Nevada

Before: RAWLINSON, MILLER, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Keith Benson, Jennifer Vargas, and Megan Sullivan (collectively,

“defendants”) appeal the district court’s denial in part of their summary judgment

motion on qualified immunity. Defendants filed a notice of appeal 88 days after the

district court entered its order on the docket. In a concurrently filed opinion, we hold

that 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) requires defendants to file a notice of appeal within 30 days

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. after entry of an order denying qualified immunity. McNeil v. Gittere, No. 23-3080,

slip op. at 3 (9th Cir. Sep. 2, 2025). Because defendants filed their appeal more than

30 days after the district court entered its order denying in part their summary

judgment motion on qualified immunity, it is untimely. We thus dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction. 1

The appeal is DISMISSED.

1 Although Pattison did not raise this issue in his briefs, the timeliness of an appeal in a civil case is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Harmston v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 627 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted).