1. Does Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) foreclose interlocutory appeal of an order denying summary judgment on qualified immunity, where the underlying evidentiary fact is undisputed, but where different inferences may be drawn from the particular fact, or do such disputes concern evaluation of the materiality of a particular fact, which, under Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) is a legal issue, and therefore subject to interlocutory appeal under Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985)?

2. Did the Ninth Circuit improperly depart from this Court's decision in Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (per curiam) and numerous other qualified immunity cases by denying qualified immunity notwithstanding the absence of clearly established law imposing liability under circumstances closely analogous to those confronting the officers?

3. Did the Ninth Circuit improperly depart from this Court's decisions in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) and Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014) in denying qualified immunity based upon the absence of a constitutional violation given that the undisputed facts established that Petitioners acted reasonably in responding to the threat of an armed suspect?

Whether qualified immunity bars liability for officers' use of force against an armed, combative suspect