The Week in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: November 21–27, 2021
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
- The Third Circuit on Appealing the Striking of an Interpleader Complaint
- The Fifth Circuit on Appealing Attorney-Appearance Orders
- The Fourth Circuit Avoided Deciding the Appeal Deadline for Denied Intervention in Criminal Cases
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.
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
It’s the fourth annual winter-break edition of the weekly roundup. As I have in previous years, I took a few weeks off from Final Decisions. But I’m back with a roundup covering the last three weeks of 2022. Those weeks saw a pair of collateral-order decisions, the effect of Nasrallah v. Barr on other kinds […]
Continue reading....
There were three cases of note from last week. The Third Circuit held that notices of appeal do not encompass post-notice decisions. Litigants must file a second notice, or amend the first, to appeal those decisions. The D.C. Circuit held that it could not review a facial challenge to a statute in an injunction appeal […]
Continue reading....
There were a bunch of interesting decisions last week. In the continuing saga of the Rule 3(c) amendments, the Second Circuit acknowledged them and applied them retroactively. In other decisions, the Sixth Circuit explained that it could review class certification in an appeal from a class-wide injunction. The Fourth Circuit clarified the basis for its […]
Continue reading....
I took a break from the roundup last week, but I’m back with a double-sized edition. In the last two weeks, another circuit didn’t recognize that the recent Rule 3(c) amendments abrogated its caselaw. The Eleventh Circuit determined that a stay put an action in “suspended animation,” thereby allowing an appeal from the stay. The […]
Continue reading....
Last week, the Tenth Circuit once again used a pro se plaintiff’s notice of appeal to limit the scope of its review despite recent amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c). The Second Circuit gave a thorough explanation of its jurisdiction over decisions made in post-judgment proceedings. The Fifth Circuit heard an appeal from […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
May saw several decisions on effective injunction denials. One of those decisions raised an interesting question about the Supreme Court’s test for when a district court order effective denies a preliminary injunction. In other developments, the Fifth Circuit sat en banc to jettison its rule barring review of waiver-based remands. Other decisions addressed the finality […]
Continue reading....
In Heidi Group, Inc.v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission, the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of federal and state immunities but declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over other issues. In the course of doing so, one judge questioned the collateral-order doctrine’s application to state immunities, and the entire court questioned the doctrine of […]
Continue reading....
The Supreme Court granted cert in GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal. The case asks if defendants can immediately appeal from the denial of derivative sovereign immunity via the collateral-order doctrine. I wrote about the petition and the underlying circuit split earlier this year. And I wrote about the Tenth Circuit decision from which the petition stems […]
Continue reading....
Injunction appeals have been in the spotlight of late. We’ve seen a few recent decisions on appeals from temporary restraining orders. And this month has already produced three cases involving effective denials of preliminary injunctions. One of these cases raised a question about the test for effective—and thus appealable—injunction denials. Under the Supreme Court’s decision […]
Continue reading....
In Abraham Watkins Nichols Agosto Aziz & Stogner v. Festeryga, the en banc Fifth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) does not bar review of waiver-based remands. In so holding, the court overruled its decision in In re Weaver.
Continue reading....