Ronnie Parham v. City of West Covina

C.D. California

Ronnie Parham v. City of West Covina

DecidedSeptember 23, 2024

Docket2:21-cv-09114

StatusUnknown

This text of Ronnie Parham v. City of West Covina (Ronnie Parham v. City of West Covina) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ronnie Parham v. City of West Covina, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONNIE PARHAM, Case No. 2:21-cv-09114-FLA (GJSx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ONE OR MORE CLAIMS SHOULD NOT BE STAYED PENDING APPEAL 14 CITY OF WEST COVINA, et al., OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ISSUES 15 Defendants. [DKT. 72] 16

17 18 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 19 On August 21, 2024, Defendants Officer N. Robles, Officer Carlos Gonzalez, 20 Officer A. Hernandez, and Officer Matthew Muñoz (collectively, “Defendants”) filed 21 a notice of appeal (“Notice of Appeal”), Dkt. 72, from the court’s order denying 22 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, including on the issue of qualified 23 immunity, Dkt. 71. 24 “Ordinarily a denial of a motion for summary judgment is not a final order and 25 thus is not appealable.” Liberal v. Estrada, 632 F.3d 1064, 1073–74 (9th Cir. 2011) 26 (cleaned up). “[H]owever, a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, 27 to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’ within the 28 1 meaning of [28 U.S.C.] § 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.” Id. 2 (cleaned up) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985)). 3 The court of appeals, however, does not have jurisdiction where the appeal is 4 based on disagreement with a district court’s interpretation of facts. Liberal, 632 F.3d 5 at 1074; see also Knox v. Southwest Airlines, 124 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir.1997) 6 (“[The court of appeals] ha[s] jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from the denial 7 of qualified immunity where the appeal focuses on whether the defendants violated a 8 clearly established law given the undisputed facts, while we do not have jurisdiction 9 over an interlocutory appeal that focuses on whether there is a genuine dispute about 10 the underlying facts.”). 11 As the Ninth Circuit explained in Est. of Anderson v. Marsh, 985 F.3d 726, 731 12 (9th Cir. 2021): 13 [W]hether jurisdiction is lacking … ultimately turns on the nature of 14 the defendant’s argument on appeal. If the defendant argues only that the evidence is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material 15 fact, we lack jurisdiction. If the defendant’s appeal raises purely 16 legal questions, however, such as whether his alleged conduct violated clearly established law, we may review those issues. 17 18 (emphasis added). Thus, in Anderson, because the defendant’s interlocutory appeal 19 challenged “only the district court’s conclusion that there [was] sufficient evidence to 20 create a genuine dispute as to the factual question that will determine whether 21 [defendant]’s use of force was reasonable,” the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction. 22 Id. at 728. 23 Additionally, the filing of a notice of appeal “confers jurisdiction on the court 24 of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case 25 involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 26 (1982); see also Peck v. Cnty. of Orange, 528 F. Supp. 3d 1100, 1107 (C.D. Cal. 27 2021) (staying § 1983 claims pending resolution of qualified immunity appeal as the 28 court “no longer ha[d] jurisdiction” over these claims). 1 Last, a district court may certify an appeal is frivolous or waived, and, if the 2 || court issues such a certification, the appeal does not divest the court of jurisdiction to 3 | continue the proceedings on the issues involved in the appeal. Chuman v. Wright, 960 4 | F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992); Peck v. Cnty. of Orange, 528 F. Supp. 3d 1100, 1104 5 | (C.D. Cal. 2021) 6 Accordingly, the court ORDERS the parties to show cause in writing within 7 | fourteen (14) days of this Order why one or more claims should not be stayed 8 || pursuant to Defendants’ Notice of Appeal. The parties should address in detail the 9 | issues on appeal, whether they involve a question of law or a disagreement with the 10 | court’s interpretation of facts, and whether the court should certify as frivolous one or 11 | more of the issues on appeal. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 | Dated: September 23, 2024 16 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONNIE PARHAM, Case No. 2:21-cv-09114-FLA (GJSx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ONE OR MORE CLAIMS SHOULD NOT BE STAYED PENDING APPEAL 14 CITY OF WEST COVINA, et al., OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ISSUES 15 Defendants. [DKT. 72] 16

17 18 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 19 On August 21, 2024, Defendants Officer N. Robles, Officer Carlos Gonzalez, 20 Officer A. Hernandez, and Officer Matthew Muñoz (collectively, “Defendants”) filed 21 a notice of appeal (“Notice of Appeal”), Dkt. 72, from the court’s order denying 22 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, including on the issue of qualified 23 immunity, Dkt. 71. 24 “Ordinarily a denial of a motion for summary judgment is not a final order and 25 thus is not appealable.” Liberal v. Estrada, 632 F.3d 1064, 1073–74 (9th Cir. 2011) 26 (cleaned up). “[H]owever, a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, 27 to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’ within the 28 1 meaning of [28 U.S.C.] § 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.” Id. 2 (cleaned up) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985)). 3 The court of appeals, however, does not have jurisdiction where the appeal is 4 based on disagreement with a district court’s interpretation of facts. Liberal, 632 F.3d 5 at 1074; see also Knox v. Southwest Airlines, 124 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir.1997) 6 (“[The court of appeals] ha[s] jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from the denial 7 of qualified immunity where the appeal focuses on whether the defendants violated a 8 clearly established law given the undisputed facts, while we do not have jurisdiction 9 over an interlocutory appeal that focuses on whether there is a genuine dispute about 10 the underlying facts.”). 11 As the Ninth Circuit explained in Est. of Anderson v. Marsh, 985 F.3d 726, 731 12 (9th Cir. 2021): 13 [W]hether jurisdiction is lacking … ultimately turns on the nature of 14 the defendant’s argument on appeal. If the defendant argues only that the evidence is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material 15 fact, we lack jurisdiction. If the defendant’s appeal raises purely 16 legal questions, however, such as whether his alleged conduct violated clearly established law, we may review those issues. 17 18 (emphasis added). Thus, in Anderson, because the defendant’s interlocutory appeal 19 challenged “only the district court’s conclusion that there [was] sufficient evidence to 20 create a genuine dispute as to the factual question that will determine whether 21 [defendant]’s use of force was reasonable,” the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction. 22 Id. at 728. 23 Additionally, the filing of a notice of appeal “confers jurisdiction on the court 24 of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case 25 involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 26 (1982); see also Peck v. Cnty. of Orange, 528 F. Supp. 3d 1100, 1107 (C.D. Cal. 27 2021) (staying § 1983 claims pending resolution of qualified immunity appeal as the 28 court “no longer ha[d] jurisdiction” over these claims). 1 Last, a district court may certify an appeal is frivolous or waived, and, if the 2 || court issues such a certification, the appeal does not divest the court of jurisdiction to 3 | continue the proceedings on the issues involved in the appeal. Chuman v. Wright, 960 4 | F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992); Peck v. Cnty. of Orange, 528 F. Supp. 3d 1100, 1104 5 | (C.D. Cal. 2021) 6 Accordingly, the court ORDERS the parties to show cause in writing within 7 | fourteen (14) days of this Order why one or more claims should not be stayed 8 || pursuant to Defendants’ Notice of Appeal. The parties should address in detail the 9 | issues on appeal, whether they involve a question of law or a disagreement with the 10 | court’s interpretation of facts, and whether the court should certify as frivolous one or 11 | more of the issues on appeal. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 | Dated: September 23, 2024 16 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ronnie Parham v. City of West Covina, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronnie-parham-v-city-of-west-covina-cacd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack