MARK PETERSON V. CITY OF YAKIMA, No. 20-35070 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 30 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARK PETERSON, No. Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-35070 D.C. No. 1:18-cv-03136-RMP MEMORANDUM* CITY OF YAKIMA, a local governmental entity; TONY O’ROURKE, Defendants, and MARK SOPTICH; ANTHONY DOAN, Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: GOULD and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and CHEN,*** District Judge. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Edward M. Chen, United States District Judge for the In this interlocutory appeal, Defendants/Appellants Anthony Doan and Mark Soptich challenge the district court’s denial of qualified immunity in a First Amendment retaliation case. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Any “portion of a district court’s summary judgment order that, though entered in a ‘qualified immunity’ case, determines only a question of ‘evidence sufficiency,’ i.e., which facts a party may, or may not, be able to prove at trial . . . is not appealable.” Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313 (1995). Under Johnson, “[a]ny decision by the district court ‘that the parties’ evidence presents genuine issues of material fact is categorically unreviewable on interlocutory appeal.’” George v. Morris, 736 F.3d 829, 834 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009)). Interlocutory review jurisdiction, instead, is “confined to the question of ‘whether the defendant[] would be entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, assuming all factual disputes are resolved, and all reasonable inferences are drawn, in plaintiff’s favor.’” Id. at 836 (quoting Karl v. City of Mountlake Terrace, 678 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th Cir. 2012)). Appellants contend that they cannot be liable for retaliation because there is no evidence that either of them had any knowledge of Plaintiff/Appellee Mark Peterson’s protected First Amendment activities. The record in this case, however, certainly contains evidence that could support a fact-finder’s determination that Northern District of California, sitting by designation. 2 both Appellants did in fact have knowledge of Peterson’s protected activities. Appellants thus mischaracterize an issue of fact (namely, whether the evidence is sufficient to find that they had knowledge of Peterson’s protected activities) as an issue of law that is premised on a lack of evidence of such knowledge. Appellants’ true dispute concerns sufficiency of the evidence. We have no jurisdiction over it. DISMISSED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
