Pendent Appellate Jurisdiction Without a Valid Appeal?


March 25, 2025
By Bryan Lammon

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 appealable, there was nothing for the plaintiff’s appeal to piggyback on.

Simplifying only a bit, the case stemmed from a fatal police shooting. The decedent’s estate sued several defendants, alleging several theories of relief. What happened in the district court is not entirely clear. We know the district court denied two police officers’ request for qualified immunity and let the claims against them proceed. But the district court also said that the plaintiff had failed to plead any individual-capacity claims. So it appears that the district court thought the plaintiff brought official-capacity claims against those officers (even though qualified immunity does not apply to official-capacity claims). The two police officers then appealed, and the plaintiff cross-appealed.

The Second Circuit first said that it would exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s cross appeal. Whether the defendants were sued in their individual or official capacity affects whether they can invoke the qualified-immunity defense. So according to the Second Circuit, the individual-capacity issue was “inextricably intertwined” with the qualified-immunity appeal. The court went on to hold that the district court erred in concluding that the plaintiff had not sued the officers in their individual capacity.

But the Second Circuit then dismissed the police officers’ appeal for a lack of jurisdiction. The officers had taken an improper, fact-based qualified-immunity appeal.

I don’t see how the Second Circuit exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction. The court did not have jurisdiction over the defendant’s appeal. So there was no appealable issue with which the pendent issues could tag along.

Rossy v. City of Buffalo, 2025 WL 816301 (2d Cir. Mar. 14, 2025), available at CourtListener 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


The Fourth Circuit split on whether it could review the denial of a motion to dismiss alongside a Rule 23(f) class-certification appeal.

Continue reading....

In Harris v. Medical Transportation Management, Inc., the D.C. Circuit reviewed (and reversed) a grant of class certification. But it refused to use pendent appellate jurisdiction to review certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court explained that class actions and collective actions “are fundamentally different creatures.” The court of […]

Continue reading....

In Industrial Services Group, Inc. v. Dobson, the Fourth Circuit gave a convincing explanation for why pendent appellate jurisdiction does not extend to standing in a sovereign-immunity appeal. The courts of appeals have split on this specific issue, and the caselaw is mixed on whether standing is part of other interlocutory appeals. But the Fourth Circuit […]

Continue reading....

Pendent appellate jurisdiction allows a court of appeals to extend jurisdiction over a decision that would not normally be immediately appealable when the court has jurisdiction over another, related decision. Used almost entirely in the context of interlocutory appeals, pendent appellate jurisdiction says that the normally non-appealable issue piggybacks on the appealable one. The standards […]

Continue reading....

The general rule for appealing interlocutory arbitration orders is pretty straightforward. Under 9 U.S.C. § 16, orders that refuse to direct arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act are immediately appealable. Orders that direct arbitration aren’t. But what if an order directs arbitration on some claims but not on others? In Lyons v. PNC Bank, the Fourth […]

Continue reading....

Recent Posts


This month’s roundup features two decisions on litigants’ attempts to voluntarily dismiss some of their claims. In one, a defendant filed a written, pretrial notice that it abandoned one of its counterclaims. In another, the parties stipulated to a dismissal, but one defendant did not sign the stipulation. In both cases, the court deemed the […]

Continue reading....

In Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that when a district court alters its judgment by granting a post-judgment motion, the time to appeal runs from the entry of an amended judgment. Unlike orders denying post-judgment motions, the appeal clock does not start with the order itself.

Continue reading....

In Simmons v. USI Insurance LLC, the Eleventh Circuit held that the purported abandonment of a counterclaim before trial was ineffective and thus precluded appellate jurisdiction. The counterclaim was the only theory of relief that had not been resolved at summary judgment or trial. And in a written notice before trial, the defendant had said […]

Continue reading....

September’s biggest development in federal appellate jurisdiction concerned appeals from denials of anti-SLAPP motions under California law. The Ninth Circuit overruled its longstanding rule that defendants can immediately appeal from these denials via the collateral-order doctrine. But only a week later, the Federal Circuit followed that now-overruled caselaw and heard an anti-SLAPP appeal. It will […]

Continue reading....

Last month saw the Ninth Circuit apply its rule that a minute order can count as a separate document for purposes of starting the appeal clock. The Sixth Circuit explained when it cannot review contract-formation issues in an arbitration appeal. And the Fourth Circuit declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over standing and ripeness issues […]

Continue reading....