Manriquez v. Superior, Town of

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Richard Manriquez, No. CV-18-02026-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Town of Superior, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 The parties have filed a stipulation to stay this action pending resolution of 16 Defendants’ interlocutory appeal of the Court’s denial of summary judgment on qualified 17 immunity grounds. (Doc. 85.) 18 In the context of interlocutory qualified immunity appeals, “the district court is 19 automatically divested of jurisdiction to proceed with trial pending appeal,” unless the 20 district court “find[s] that the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity is frivolous or has 21 been waived,” in which case “the district court may certify, in writing, that defendants 22 have forfeited their right to pretrial appeal, and may proceed with trial.” Chuman v. 23 Wright, 960 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992). “An appeal is frivolous if the results are 24 obvious, or the arguments are wholly without merit.” Centeno v. City of Fresno, 2018 25 WL 1305764, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2018). 26 Here, the parties agree that Defendants’ appeal is not frivolous (Doc. 85 at 1), as 27 does the Court. 28 Accordingly, 1 IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation (Doc. 85) is granted. This action is || stayed in its entirety pending resolution of Defendants’ interlocutory appeal. The parties || must file a joint notice within five days of the issuance of the Ninth Circuit’s order resolving the interlocutory appeal. 5 Dated this 26th day of October, 2020. 6 7 Lam a’ 8 f t _o———— Dominic W. Lanza 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-