Weekly Roundup

The Week in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: November 21–27, 2021

Qualified-immunity appeals and Heck v. Humphrey, appealing stricken interpleader complaints, appealing attorney-appearance orders, and the deadline for intervention appeals in criminal cases.

December 2, 2021

By Bryan Lammon

It’s an extra-busy week, so this week’s roundup has to be quick.

The Third Circuit on Qualified-Immunity Appeals & Heck v. Humphrey

In Dennis v. City of Philadelphia, the Third Circuit refused to review a Heck v. Humphrey issue as part of a qualified-immunity appeal. The court explained that the Heck analysis was not itself part of the qualified-immunity analysis. The Heck issue was also not independently appealable. And pendent appellate jurisdiction was improper because the immunity and Heck inquiries were not “inextricably intertwined”:

A Heck inquiry turns on “whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.” By contrast, a qualified immunity inquiry turns on “(1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the official’s conduct.” These inquiries are distinct and separable.

Dennis v. City of Philadelphia, 2021 WL 5458432 (3d Cir. Nov. 23, 2021), available at the Third Circuit and Westlaw.

The Third Circuit on Appealing the Striking of an Interpleader Complaint

In CPR Management, S.A. v. Devon Park Bioventures, L.P, the Third Circuit held that an interlocutory order striking an interpleader complaint is not immediately appealable.

The plaintiff in CPR Management had argued that orders striking interpleader complaints are like denials of intervention, which are immediately appealable final decisions. But denials of intervention leave the would-be intervenor out of the case. So for a would-be intervenor to have any chance to protect its interests, an appeal from the denial of intervention must be immediate. Striking an interpleader complaint, in contrast, does not effectively bar a litigant from protecting its interests. To be sure, an order striking that complaint might affect future collection efforts. But that’s not enough to make the decision appealable.

CPR Management, S.A. v. Devon Park Bioventures, L.P, 2021 WL 5443144 (3d Cir. Nov. 22, 2021), available at the Third Circuit and Westlaw.

The Fifth Circuit on Appealing Attorney-Appearance Orders

In United States v. Rodriguez, the Fifth Circuit held that the government could not immediately appeal an order barring a U.S. Attorney from appearing in a case. The government invoked the collateral-order doctrine as the basis for the appeal. But the Fifth Circuit explained that it had limited collateral-order appeals in criminal cases to the few circumstances identified by the Supreme Court.

United States v. Rodriguez, 2021 WL 5504846 (5th Cir. Nov. 23, 2021), available at the Fifth Circuit and Westlaw.

The Fourth Circuit Avoided Deciding the Appeal Deadline for Denied Intervention in Criminal Cases

And in In re Capitol Broadcasting Co., the Fourth Circuit avoided deciding which appeal deadline—civil or criminal—applied when media entities appealed from an order denying intervention in a criminal case. Circumstances had rendered the appeal moot, meaning that the court did not need to determine which appeal deadline applied.

In re Capitol Broadcasting Co., 2021 WL 5501115 (4th Cir. Nov. 24, 2021), available at the Fourth Circuit and Westlaw.

recent posts

No Perlman Appeals When the Same Issues Could Be Raised via Contempt
The Eleventh Circuit held that a privilege claimant cannot take a Perlman appeal when the claimant could have raised the same issues via its own contempt appeal.
A Rule 4 Conflict: The Prison-Mailbox Rule v. the Mistaken-Filing Rule
The Fifth Circuit held that when an imprisoned appellant mistakenly mails a notice of appeal to the court of appeals, the notice is deemed filed when deposited in the prison mail system.
The Month in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: September 2024
Another split on pure Bivens appeals, no equitable exceptions for Rule 4(a)(4), another failure to apply the Rule 3(c) amendments, and more.
Serving, Filing, and Equitable Exceptions to Rule 4(a)(4)
The Second Circuit reiterated its rule that a post-judgment motion must be timely filed—not merely served—to reset the appeal clock. The court added that Rule 4(a)(4) does not allow for equitable exceptions and addressed an order-designation issue, too.
Yet Another Split Rejection of Pure Bivens Appeals
The Ninth Circuit joined the Third and Tenth Circuits in rejecting pure Bivens appeals. But like those courts, the Ninth’s decision was split.

related posts

The Weeks in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: Winter Break 2022
The collateral-order doctrine for protective orders and municipal immunity, Nasrallah’s effect on withholding appeals, the effect of the Solicitor General’s authorization on the timeliness of government appeals, and more.
The Week in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: December 4–10, 2022
Notices of appeal and post-notice decisions, addressing a facial challenge in an injunction appeal involving an as-applied challenge, and TROs that effectively deny injunctive relief.
The Week in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: November 27–December 3, 2022
The Rule 3(c) amendments get applied retroactively! Plus the scope of appeal for class-wide injunctions, the jurisdictional basis for compassionate-release appeals, finality in FLSA collective actions, and more.
The Weeks in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: November 13–26, 2022
The Rule 3(c) amendments, stay appeals, immigration appeals, mandamus for a subpoena, appealing the ministerial-exception defense, and more.
The Week in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: November 6–12, 2022
The misapplication of the Rule 3(c) amendments, appeals from decisions in post-judgment proceedings, abstention appeals, and reversing orders allowing § 1292(b) and Rule 54(b) appeals.