Case Explained: ESPINOSA V. GITTERE, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-25 Docket: 3:21-cv-00205-ART-CLB The ninth-circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the district court’s denial of qualified immunity turned on factual disputes rather than pure questions of law. The court applied the standard established in *Johnson v. Jones*, which holds that a district court’s determination that a record raises a genuine issue of fact is not an appealable “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 when the appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence or requires credibility determinations. Specifically, the appellate court found it lacked jurisdiction to review the defendants’ arguments regarding whether they were aware of ineffective food contamination measures and whether the plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim involved genuine factual disputes about the defendants’ knowledge and the legitimacy of penological interests. Consequently, the case remains in the district court for further proceedings on the merits, as the appellate panel cannot evaluate evidence-sufficiency determinations in this interlocutory posture. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.