The Fifth Circuit issued a sharp reminder of the jurisdictional limits on addressing the genuineness of fact disputes in qualified-immunity appeals.
August 11, 2019
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.