Reviewing the Summary-Judgment Standard in Qualified-Immunity Appeals
In Washington v. City of St. Louis, the Eighth Circuit vacated a denial of qualified immunity because the district court misstated and misapplied the summary-judgment standard. The Eighth Circuit thought this was a legal issue over which it had jurisdiction in a qualified-immunity appeal.
But I’m not sure. Most (if not all) reversible summary-judgment decisions can be characterized as misunderstandings or misapplications of the summary-judgment standard. And Johnson v. Jones said that some of these reversible summary-judgment decisions—those involving evidence sufficiency—are off limits in immediate appeals from the denial of qualified immunity. Washington might have just restated the evidence-sufficiency inquiry in a way that gets around Johnson.
The Denial of Immunity in Washington
Washington stemmed from the overdose and death of someone held in jail. Simplifying only a little bit, the decedent’s representative sued three jail guards for deliberate indifference. Alongside their answer to the complaint, the defendants moved for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds and also sought a stay of discovery.
It appears that no discovery took place. That created an obvious problem for the plaintiff: without discovery, she could not adequately respond to the defendants’ motion.
The district court nevertheless denied summary judgment. I’ll get to its reasons in a moment. For now, it’s enough to know that the district court did so, and the defendants then appealed.
Jurisdiction Over the Summary-Judgment Standard
The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. The court of appeals recognized its limited jurisdiction in qualified-immunity appeals; sufficiency of the evidence was off of the table. But the Eighth Circuit said that it could review “abstract issues of law.” And the court found two such issues in the appeal.
First, the district court applied the wrong summary-judgment standard. The district court had denied summary judgment because the defendants had not produced evidence to definitively defeat the plaintiff’s claim. But Celetex Corp. v. Catrett says that doing so is not necessary. Defendants can instead point to the lack of evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claims.
Second, the district court relied on the plaintiff’s unsworn complaint in rejecting the evidence that the defendants had supplied. (I’m guessing this was because the district court did not allow any discovery.) But a party cannot resist summary judgment by relying on unsworn allegations in a complaint.
The Eighth Circuit accordingly vacated the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. In doing so, the court of appeals noted that the district court could reconsider its decision to stay discovery.
Circumventing Johnson?
I have some doubts about Washington. The Supreme Court held in Johnson v. Jones that the scope of qualified-immunity appeals generally does not include the genuineness of any fact disputes. With narrow exceptions, courts of appeals must instead take as given the district court’s conclusion about what facts a reasonable jury could find. The court of appeals reviews only whether those facts amount to a violation of clearly established law.
Washington might tread into the forbidden territory. To be sure, the court addressed only legal issues. But not all legal issues are fair game in a qualified-immunity appeal. After all, the very question that Johnson forbade appellate courts from reviewing—the genuineness of a fact dispute—is a legal issue.
Washington doesn’t look much different from reviewing the genuineness of the fact disputes. Presumably the district court determined that a reasonable jury could find that the plaintiff’s version of events was accurate. That determination might be right or wrong. But Johnson says that it’s generally off limits.
The Eighth Circuit appears to have gotten around Johnson by holding that the district court (1) applied the wrong summary-judgment standard and (2) relied on inappropriate material. But most (if not all) reversible summary-judgment decisions could be characterized as “misapplications” of the summary-judgment standard. And inquiring into what stuff (or lack of stuff) the district court relied on in denying summary judgment is little more than in inquiry into what facts a reasonable jury might find.
The summary-judgment denial in Washington might be especially wrong. (That’s probably because the district court did not allow any discovery; had it done so, the plaintiff might have had the evidence needed to avoid summary judgment.) In fact, the case might have been an appropriate one to apply the blatant-contradiction exception to Johnson, though I still doubt that this exception is ever appropriate. But courts should not try to circumvent Johnson by re-characterizing the very issue that Johnson forbade them from reviewing.
Washington v. City of St. Louis, 2023 WL 6887729 (8th Cir. Oct. 19, 2023), available at the Eighth 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....