A Video-Evidence Exception for Qualified-Immunity Appeals


November 21, 2023
By Bryan Lammon

In Argueta v. Jaradi, the Fifth Circuit created a new exception to the bar on reviewing the genuineness of fact disputes in qualified-immunity appeals. In most of those appeals, the court must take as given the district court’s determination of what facts a reasonable jury could find. But according to the Fifth Circuit, an appellate court doesn’t have to do that when video evidence exists.

The Video-Evidence Exception

Again, the general rule in qualified-immunity appeals is that appellate jurisdiction exists only to review the materiality of factual disputes, not their genuineness. But most courts of appeals have held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Scott v. Harris created an exception to this rule when something in the record blatantly contradicts the district court’s assessment of the record. I’ve written quite a bit about this exception and how unpragmatic and unnecessary it is.

The Fifth Circuit has taken Scott a step further. The Argueta court said that it can review the genuineness of fact disputes in qualified-immunity appeals when video evidence exists. The Fifth Circuit recognized that one could read Scott (as most courts have) to permit “review the genuineness of fact disputes only to determine whether video evidence ‘blatantly contradicts’ one party’s version of events.” (Emphasis in original.) But the Fifth Circuit thinks that Scott “recogniz[ed] a general exception to the prohibition on interlocutory review of genuineness in cases involving video evidence.”

A Terrible Reading of Scott

This might be the worst reading of Scott that I’ve come across. This video-evidence exception has many of the same problems as the blatant-contradiction exception. (See my article on the blatant-contradiction exception for more on this point.) But what might be even worse is the just-quoted language from Argueta. The Fifth Circuit said that Scott “recogniz[ed] a general exception to the prohibition on interlocutory review of genuineness in cases involving video evidence.” Nonsense. Scott didn’t say—much less recognize—anything about appellate jurisdiction. The majority didn’t mention it or Johnson v. Jones, the case that established the bar on reviewing the genuineness of fact disputes. The blatant-contradiction exception has come from appellate courts’ attempts to reconcile Scott and Johnson.

Nor do the cases the Fifth Circuit cited clearly establish this exception. One case Argueta relied on was Curran v. Aleshire. But that was a curious citation. At one point, Curran noted that a defendant “invite[d] the court to view the video and still pictures and draw its own conclusions about whether [the plaintiff] exhibited signs of resistance.” The Curran court could do so, it said, under Scott, “which created an unexplained exception to the materiality/genuineness rule.” But the Fifth Circuit then added that “Scott instructs that a plaintiff’s version of the facts should not be accepted for purposes of qualified immunity when it is ‘blatantly contradicted’ and ‘utterly discredited’ by video recordings.” Curran thus adopted the blatant-contradiction exception. It did not create a broader video-evidence exception.

The Fifth Circuit also cited to Poole v. City of Shreveport. (I wrote about Poole when it was decided; see this roundup.) And at one point, Poole said that Scott created an exception to the bar on reviewing the existence of fact disputes: “On interlocutory review, a court may consider video recordings in determining whether a factual dispute exists.” But the only citations for this proposition were Scott and the just-discussed Curran. Further, the court in Poole went on to agree with the district court that genuine fact disputes existed. So any statement about a video-evidence exception was unnecessary to the court’s decision—the same outcome would have been reached by accepting the district court’s version of events.

Avoiding Argueta in the Future

Similarly, a future court might avoid reading Argueta to establish a video-evidence exception. Just like in Poole, the Fifth Circuit went on to agree that genuine fact disputes existed. (A majority of the panel then held that even if these fact disputes were resolved in the plaintiff’s favor, the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. Judge Haynes dissented on this point.) So any recognition or invocation of the video-evidence exception was unnecessary to the outcome.

Argueta v. Jaradi, 2023 WL 7974744 (5th Cir. Nov. 17, 2023), available at the Fifth Circuit and Westlaw

Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.

Learn More Contact

Related Posts


In two appeals—Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and Salter v. City of Detroit, the Sixth Circuit spoke at length about its jurisdiction to review certain Brady issues as part of qualified-immunity appeals. The cases produced a total of six opinions, several of which dove into this jurisdictional issue.

Continue reading....

I’ve frequently written about the problem of fact-based qualified-immunity appeals both on this website and in my research. I recently decided to collect some new data on how much needless delay these appeals add to civil-rights litigation. I had done something similar a few years ago when writing about the need to sanction defendants for […]

Continue reading....

In Fleming v. United States, the Eleventh Circuit became the fifth court of appeals to reject pure Bivens appeals. The court held that federal officials cannot immediately appeal the Bivens question without also appealing the denial of qualified immunity. Unlike some of the prior decisions, this one was unanimous. And it puts the government’s record […]

Continue reading....

In New Albany Main Street Properties v. Watco Companies, LLC, the Sixth Circuit held that it could not review a decision granting leave to amend as part of a qualified-immunity appeal. The leave-to-amend decision was not itself immediately appealable. Nor could it tag along with the denial of immunity (which technically involved qualified immunity under […]

Continue reading....

In Blackwell v. Nocerini, the Sixth Circuit held that a motion to reconsider reset the time to take a qualified-immunity appeal. The denial of immunity was immediately appealable and thus a “judgment” under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So a motion to reconsider that denial was effectively a motion under Federal Rule of Civil […]

Continue reading....

Recent Posts


In two appeals—Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and Salter v. City of Detroit, the Sixth Circuit spoke at length about its jurisdiction to review certain Brady issues as part of qualified-immunity appeals. The cases produced a total of six opinions, several of which dove into this jurisdictional issue.

Continue reading....

In Rossy v. City of Buffalo, the Second Circuit appeared to both dismiss a qualified-immunity appeal for a lack of jurisdiction and exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s cross-appeal. This is odd. Pendent appellate jurisdiction allows normally non-appealable issues to tag along with appealable ones. But if the denial of qualified immunity was not […]

Continue reading....

I’ve frequently written about the problem of fact-based qualified-immunity appeals both on this website and in my research. I recently decided to collect some new data on how much needless delay these appeals add to civil-rights litigation. I had done something similar a few years ago when writing about the need to sanction defendants for […]

Continue reading....

Yesterday, I filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Parrish v. United States, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court. The case asks if an appellant must file a new notice of appeal after the district court reopens the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). Both the […]

Continue reading....

Last month saw another rejection of pure Bivens appeals, an analysis of Perlman appeals in the grand-jury context, and a ruling on mandatory stays during a remand appeal. Plus an odd sovereign-immunity appeal, appeals without the express resolution of all claims, and much more.

Continue reading....