More mandamus from the Federal Circuit, appealing unsealing orders via the collateral-order doctrine, and pendent appellate jurisdiction over the merits in a qualified-immunity appeal.
November 23, 2021
Last week was a big one for mandamus in the Federal Circuit. That court issued three writs of mandamus (and dismissed another as moot), all directed to denials of transfer motions by the same district court judge. That judge has recently seen a lot of mandamus petitions targeting his transfer decisions, and I’ve linked several blog posts below discussing these petitions.
In other decisions, the Eleventh Circuit held that it could immediately review unsealing orders via the collateral-order doctrine. That court had already held that orders granting motions to seal and denying motions to unseal were immediately appealable via the doctrine. The court extended the rationale of those decisions to unsealing orders. And the Sixth Circuit used pendent appellate jurisdiction to review the merits of a state law claim as part of a qualified-immunity appeal. The merits of that claim were “inextricably intertwined” with state law immunity, so the court could review both.
- “Mandamus Monday” in the Federal Circuit
- The Collateral-Order Doctrine and Unsealing Orders
- Pendent Appellate Jurisdiction Over the Merits in a Qualified-Immunity Appeal
“Mandamus Monday” in the Federal Circuit
Monday was—in the words of Patently-O’s Dennis Crouch—“mandamus Monday” in the Federal Circuit. The court granted three mandamus petitions and dismissed another as moot.
Interestingly, all of the petitions were directed to the same district court judge—Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas—and all involved denials of transfer motions. That judge has seen a lot of mandamus petitions recently. Patently-O has some great coverage of this state of affairs, including:
- Jonas Anderson, Paul Gugliuzza & Jason Rantanen, Extraordinary Writ or Ordinary Remedy? Mandamus at the Federal Circuit – Part 1.
- Jonas Anderson, Paul Gugliuzza & Jason Rantanen, Extraordinary Writ or Ordinary Remedy? Mandamus at the Federal Circuit – Part 2.
- Jonas Anderson, Paul Gugliuzza & Jason Rantanen, Extraordinary Writ or Ordinary Remedy? Mandamus at the Federal Circuit – Part 3.
- Paul Gugliuzza & Jonas Anderson (I can’t tell if Jason Rantanen co-authored this post, too), Guest Post: How It Started… How It’s Going: Venue Transfers in the Western District of Texas.
- Dennis Crouch, Venue Mandamus Petitions Continue to Flow to the Federal Circuit.
- Dennis Crouch, Venue: Out of Texas.
Anderson, Gugliuzza and Rantanen are also working on an article on this topic. While waiting for it, check out Paul Gugliuzza’s The New Federal Circuit Mandamus.
In re Google LLC, 2021 WL 5292267 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021), available at the Federal Circuit and Westlaw.
In re Atlassian Corp., 2021 WL 5292268 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021), available at the Federal Circuit and Westlaw.
In re Apple Inc., 2021 WL 5291804 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021), available at the Federal Circuit and Westlaw.
In re Meraki Integrated Circuit (Shenzen) Technology, Ltd., 2021 WL 5292271 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021), available at the Federal Circuit and Westlaw.
The Collateral-Order Doctrine and Unsealing Orders
In Callahan v. United Network for Organ Sharing, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed an interlocutory order unsealing judicial records.
The Eleventh Circuit has previously held that orders granting motions to seal and denying motions to unseal are immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. The Callahan court extended that holding to orders granting motions to unseal. Those orders conclusively resolve an issue that is separate from the merits of the action. And an order granting a motion to unseal is effectively unreviewable after a final judgment—once the information is disclosed, it can never be made secret. The court noted that this has become especially true given advancements in communication technology—once documents enter public circulation, there’s no getting them back.
Callahan v. United Network for Organ Sharing, 2021 WL 5351863 (1th Cir. Nov. 17, 2021), available at the Eleventh Circuit and Westlaw.
Pendent Appellate Jurisdiction Over the Merits in a Qualified-Immunity Appeal
In Browning v. Edmonson County, the Sixth Circuit exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction to review the merits of a state law claim as part of an appeal from the denial of qualified immunity on those claims.
Browning involved a variety of state and federal claims stemming from a police officer’s Tasing of passenger in a suspect’s vehicle. The Sixth Circuit could review the denial of state law qualified immunity on the state law claims; like federal qualified immunity, the state law qualified immunity exists to shield defendants from litigation. And one of the state law claims was inextricably intertwined with immunity.
On the plaintiff’s battery claim, the “immunity analysis necessarily determine[d]” the merits, as a determination that the defendant used excessive force resolved immunity and the merits.
The plaintiff’s other state law claims—for negligence and gross negligence—were different. The immunity analysis for those claims asked “whether [the defendants’] actions were discretionary or ministerial under Kentucky law.” The merits analysis “depend[ed] on an entirely separate analysis—whether [the defendants] violated a specific duty of care owed to the plaintiffs.” So pendent appellate jurisdiction over the merits of the negligence and gross negligence claims was improper.
Browning v. Edmonson County, 2021 WL 5351865 (6th Cir. Nov. 17, 2021), available at the Sixth Circuit and Westlaw.