Aniel v. San Mateo County

Motions and requested relief

The court addressed three motions filed by Plaintiff Erlinda Abibas Aniel: (1) certification for an interlocutory appeal, meaning an appeal before the case reaches a final judgment; (2) amendment of the court’s August 20, 2026 order to state that the dismissed claims were certified for appeal; and (3) a stay, meaning a pause, of the remaining claims while an appeal was pending.

Earlier dismissal and Aniel’s argument

Aniel sought to appeal the portion of the earlier order dismissing her Fourth Amendment claims and her claims against Defendant San Mateo Sheriff’s Office without leave to amend. In that order, the court found that the complaint did not plausibly allege that the defendants acted without legal authority because they acted under a court-issued writ of possession. The court also dismissed the Fourth Amendment claim with prejudice because it found the defendants protected by absolute quasi-judicial immunity.

Aniel argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Saucier v. Katz required the court to analyze separately whether a constitutional violation occurred and whether qualified immunity applied. She contended that, had the court considered Saucier, it would not have concluded that acting under a court order automatically entitled the Sheriff Defendants to immunity. She also repeated arguments challenging the validity of the writ of possession.

Court’s analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), an interlocutory appeal requires a controlling legal question, substantial ground for disagreement about that question, and a showing that an immediate appeal may materially advance the end of the litigation. The court held that Saucier did not support certification because Saucier addressed qualified immunity, while the earlier dismissal rested on absolute quasi-judicial immunity. The court explained that the two doctrines are distinct: absolute immunity can defeat a suit at the outset when the official’s conduct falls within its scope, while qualified immunity depends on the circumstances and motivations of the conduct.

The court also rejected Aniel’s arguments about the validity of the writ. It stated that those arguments had already been conclusively addressed in the earlier dismissal order and that claims based on an improperly issued or invalid writ were not cognizable in that court. The court further stated that its conclusion about absolute immunity relied on settled Ninth Circuit precedent. It held that Aniel therefore failed to present a controlling legal question justifying an interlocutory appeal.

Disposition

The court denied Aniel’s motion to certify an interlocutory appeal. Because the motion to amend the earlier order and the request to stay the remaining claims were based on the appeal request, the court denied those motions as well. The order did not stay the remaining claims.