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
In Diaz v. FCA US LLC, the Third Circuit split over whether a district court had resolved distinct claims for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The majority concluded that the district court had resolved only a distinct theory of recovery, not a distinct claim. Dissenting, Judge Phipps argued that claims are defined […]
Continue reading....
In Grippa v. Rubin, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the immediate appealability of Florida’s absolute and qualified litigation privileges. The court determined that the absolute privilege was immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. But the qualified litigation privilege was not.
Continue reading....
Last month featured a Sixth Circuit debate over jurisdiction to review Brady issues in appeals from the denial of qualified immunity. There was also an especially odd Second Circuit decision in which the court exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction over a normally non-appealable issue even though the court lacked jurisdiction over any other issue. And there […]
Continue reading....
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....