similarly, a factual dispute regarding whether or not Defendants should be entitled to qualified immunity. Because the Court’s denial of qualified immunity was based on a factual dispute requiring resolution by a trier of fact; there was no “final decision” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Court’s denial of summary judgment should therefore not have been subject to an interlocutory appeal. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. at 319-20, 115 S.Ct. 2151 (“holding that a defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal district court’s summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a ‘genuine’ issue of fact for trial.”); see also Johnson v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., 724 F.3d 1159, 1164 (9th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>) In holding that qualified immunity is not
holding that ninth circuit jurisdiction over summary judgment appeals is limited we may review only the district courts legal conclusion that an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity holding that an officer applying for a warrant without probable cause may be entitled to qualified immunity but is not entitled to absolute immunity holding that  reasonableness of the officers decision in applying for and executing the warrant is a legal question and therefore the court had jurisdiction to hear appeal from the district courts order denying summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity holding that the court lacked appellate jurisdiction over a partial summary judgment on liability in a qualified immunity case