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
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.