King v. LeBlanc’s Reminder of the Limits on Qualified-Immunity Appeals
In King v. LeBlanc, the Fifth Circuit dismissed a qualified-immunity appeal that challenged only the district court’s determination that a genuine fact issue existed as to the officer’s deliberate indifference. This far-too-common practice of challenging the facts in qualified-immunity appeals wastes a lot of time for courts and plaintiffs. In King, the Fifth Circuit was quick to remind defendants that it lacks jurisdiction over these arguments. But are reminders enough?
The district court’s decision in King v. LeBlanc
King involved eighth amendment claims by a prisoner who claimed that correctional officers left him in his cell, naked and handcuffed, and ignored his need to be protected from his cellmate. The officers sought qualified immunity because, they claimed, they did not know that the plaintiff was handcuffed or in danger. But the plaintiff testified that he had called out to the defendants to remove the handcuffs. Because a genuine fact issue existed as to whether the defendants heard the plaintiff and ignored him, the district court denied qualified immunity.
On appeal, the officers did not challenge the district court’s legal conclusion—that they would be liable if they heard the plaintiff and ignored him. They instead disputed the facts. They argued that they did not know that the plaintiff was handcuffed, did not know the plaintiff needed to be protected from his cellmate, and promptly intervened once they saw the plaintiff being attacked.
A useful reminder on appeal
The district court had concluded, however, that sufficient contrary evidence existed to create a genuine fact dispute as to the officers’ knowledge and conduct. So the Fifth Circuit lacked jurisdiction. And the court emphasized the error in the officers’ appeal:
We have made it clear time and time again that we lack jurisdiction to resolve the genuineness of any factual disputes; we may only review whether the factual disputes are material.
(Cleaned up.)
Defendants regularly contest the facts in interlocutory qualified-immunity appeals. And courts rebuff those efforts (except when something in the record blatantly contradicts those facts). Less common are defendants that argue only their own version of the facts. There’s often at least some argument that, even under the facts assumed by the district court, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
In either case, these arguments about the facts amount to a substantial waste of time for courts and an unnecessary burden on plaintiffs. And these arguments are one reason qualified-immunity appeals are in serious need of reform.
King v. LeBlanc, 2019 WL 3763524 (5th Cir. 2019), 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 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....