Dante Pattison v. Keith Benson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 2 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANTE HANALEI PATTISON, No. 23-15870 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00287-MMD-CSD v. KEITH BENSON; et al., MEMORANDUM * Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, Chief District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 6, 2025 Las Vegas, Nevada Before: RAWLINSON, MILLER, and DESAI, Circuit Judges. Keith Benson, Jennifer Vargas, and Megan Sullivan (collectively, “defendants”) appeal the district court’s denial in part of their summary judgment motion on qualified immunity. Defendants filed a notice of appeal 88 days after the district court entered its order on the docket. In a concurrently filed opinion, we hold that 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) requires defendants to file a notice of appeal within 30 days * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. after entry of an order denying qualified immunity. McNeil v. Gittere, No. 23-3080, slip op. at 3 (9th Cir. Sep. 2, 2025). Because defendants filed their appeal more than 30 days after the district court entered its order denying in part their summary judgment motion on qualified immunity, it is untimely. We thus dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 1 The appeal is DISMISSED. 1 Although Pattison did not raise this issue in his briefs, the timeliness of an appeal in a civil case is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Harmston v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 627 F.3d 1273, 1279 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). 2