DAVIS v. YATES (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Defendants James A. Yates and Matthew Cate appeal from the district court's order denying them qualified immunity in plaintiff Charles T. Davis's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference claims. We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526-27, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). We review de novo the district court's ruling on qualified immunity. George v. Edholm, 752 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.

The district court determined that Yates and Cate were not entitled to qualified immunity on Davis's deliberate indifference claims. However, after the district court's order was entered, this court in Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1229 (9th Cir. 2019), concluded that a prisoner's “right to be free from heightened exposure to Valley Fever spores” was not clearly established. Because the district court did not have the benefit of the decision in Hines when it entered its order, we vacate the denial of qualified immunity as to Davis's deliberate indifference claims against Yates and Cate, and remand with instructions to grant Yates and Cate's motion to dismiss.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Davis's contentions unrelated to the denial of qualified immunity for Yates and Cate because they are outside the scope of this appeal. See Alston v. Read, 663 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011) (jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity limited to “the purely legal issue whether the facts alleged ․ support a claim of clearly established law.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.