Fifth Circuit: No Appeals from Denials of Appointed Counsel
In Williams v. Catoe, the en banc Fifth Circuit held that orders denying appointed counsel in § 1983 suits are not immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. The court concluded that these orders were effectively reviewable in an appeal from a final judgment. In doing so, the Fifth Circuit overruled its decision in Robbins v. Maggio and joined nearly every other circuit to address this matter. It appears that only the Eighth Circuit remains in treating orders denying appointed counsel as immediately appealable.
Williams—a Texas inmate proceeding pro se—brought Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against several state employees. The district court denied Williams’s request for appointed counsel. And under the Fifth Circuit’s 1985 decision in Robbins v. Maggio, denials of appointed counsel were immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine. So Williams appealed the district court’s decision. But the state of Texas moved for initial hearing en banc, and Louisiana and Mississippi filed an amicus brief in support of the motion. They asked the Fifth Circuit to re-examine Robbins. The court agreed and, in a unique procedural posture, heard the case initially en banc.
In a short opinion, the Fifth Circuit overruled Robbins and held that denials of appointed counsel in § 1983 cases were not immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine. That doctrine—a judicially created exception to the regular final-judgment rule—deems certain kinds of district court decisions final and appealable if three conditions are met: the order must (1) conclusively resolve the appealed issue, (2) present an important issue that is completely separate from the merits, and (3) be effectively unreviewable in an appeal from a final judgment.
The court addressed only the third requirement: that the order be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Robbins had reasoned that pro se litigants would abandon their claims or settle if they could not obtain appointed counsel. That is, those litigants were sufficiently unlikely to prosecute their claims or appeal that denial of appointed counsel was effectively unreviewable.
Williams quoted extensively from Judge Garwood’s dissent in Robbins, which noted that many pro se litigants pursue their claims through an appeal. Judge Garwood had also predicted a significant increase in the number of appeals in pro se civil suits. The Fifth Circuit thus concluded that although burdens of delaying these appeals might not be perfectly reparable on appeal after a final judgment, that was not enough to render these decisions effectively unreviewable under the collateral-order doctrine.
The Fifth Circuit noted that nine other circuits have reached the same conclusion, with the Eighth Circuit now being the only apparent outlier. And in a footnote, the court limited its holding to § 1983 suits—it declined to extend its holding to Bivens suits due to the “law of unintended consequences.”
Williams v. Catoe, 2020 WL 64476 (5th Cir. Jan 7, 2020), 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 ContactRelated Posts
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 SEC v. EquityBuild, Inc., the Seventh Circuit heard an appeal from order approving the distribution of some—but not all—of the assets in a receivership proceeding. The order was appealable under the Seventh Circuit’s caselaw, which deemed these orders appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. Judge Easterbrook concurred to express doubt in this caselaw and suggest […]
Continue reading....
In Coomer v. Make Your Life Epic LLC, the Tenth Circuit held that denials of anti-SLAPP motions under Colorado law are not immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. The court drew an interesting line between appeals involving primarily legal issues—which can warrant immediate appeal—and those involving primarily factual issues—which don’t. The court explained that fact-heavy […]
Continue reading....
In Garrick v. Moody Bible Institute, a divided Seventh Circuit held that a defendant cannot immediately appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss on church-autonomy grounds. The Seventh Circuit thereby joined the Second and Tenth Circuits in both its ultimate holding and its having a split court.
Continue reading....
In Amisi v. Brooks, the Fourth Circuit held that defendants can immediately appeal from the refusal to dismiss a claim as barred by the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act. The court thought that the Act provided an immunity from litigation. And that, apparently, was all that was necessary for an appeal via the collateral-order doctrine. But […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
In City of Martinsville v. Express Scripts, Inc., a divided Fourth Circuit held that a court must stay proceedings—and not process a remand order—if the defendant appeals before the district court can send the remand order to the state court. The majority thought that the rule of Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.—particularly as the […]
Continue reading....
Perlman Appeals in the Grand Jury Context In In re Grand Jury Subpoeans Dated Sep. 13, 2023, the Second Circuit held that the target of a grand jury investigation could appeal an order directing the target’s attorneys to disclose documents over a claim of attorney-client privilege. The order was appealable via the Perlman doctrine, which generally […]
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....
Last month produced decisions involving a variety of appellate-jurisdiction issues. The Fifth Circuit decertified a § 1292(b) appeal. Judge Pillard of the D.C. Circuit explained that appellate “standing” does not require re-establishing standing in the court of appeals. The Sixth Circuit said that qualified immunity and an action’s merits are intertwined, which suggests (perhaps unintentionally) […]
Continue reading....
A new cert petition asks whether the denial of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine.
Continue reading....