The Weeks in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: June 5–18, 2022

The to-the-point roundups of summer 2022 continue with a double-sized edition. Highlights include using Scott v. Harris’s blatant-contradiction exception to disregard allegations in a complaint and the appealability of Title VII’s ministerial-exception defense.

• The Sixth Circuit on Videos Blatantly Contradicting Pleadings
• A Split Tenth Circuit Said No Immediate Appeals of the Ministerial-Exception Defense
• Cumulative Finality
• The Seventh Circuit Dismissed an Appeal From a Magistrate Judge’s Order
• The Opportunities for Qualified-Immunity Appeals
• Appealing Heck v. Humphrey Issues in Qualified-Immunity Appeals
• State Law Immunities
• The Fifth Circuit on Pendent Appellate Jurisdiction
• The Eleventh Circuit Dismissed an Appeal From an Order Refusing to Vacate a Receivership
• The Eleventh Circuit Dismissed an Appeal From a Clerk-Entered Judgment

The Sixth Circuit on Videos Blatantly Contradicting Pleadings

In Bell v. City of Southfield, the Sixth Circuit used the blatant-contradiction exception to reject allegations in a complaint. The plaintiff in Bell had alleged that the officers unnecessarily Tased him. The district court credited this allegation and denied qualified immunity. But in the officer’s immediate appeal, the Sixth Circuit determined that a video of the altercation blatantly contradicted that allegation—the plaintiff had left out details of his resisting the officers. The court accordingly viewed the pleadings in light of the video and partially reversed the denial of qualified immunity.

Thanks to Michael Solimine for sending this case my way.

Bell v. City of Southfield, 2022 WL 2128815 (6th Cir. June 14, 2022), available at the Sixth Circuit and Westlaw.

A Split Tenth Circuit Said No Immediate Appeals of the Ministerial-Exception Defense

In Tucker v. Faith Bible Chapel International, the Tenth Circuit split over the application of the collateral-order doctrine to Title VII’s “ministerial exception” defense. The majority held that denials of the defense were not immediately appealable, emphasizing that the exception is a fact-based defense to liability and not an immunity from suit. Judge Bacharach dissented, contending that the defense protected employers from litigation.

Thanks to Michael Solimine for sending this case my way.

Tucker v. Faith Bible Chapel International, 2022 WL 2035804 (10th Cir. June 7, 2022), available at the Tenth Circuit and Westlaw.

Cumulative Finality

Several courts dealt with cumulative finality, which allows for the relation-forward of premature notices of appeal.

In Cimontubo – Tubagens e Soldadura, LDA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., the Second Circuit held that the subsequent calculation of fees, costs, and interests saved a notice filed after a decision on liability and damages.

Similarly, in Redstone International, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., the Fourth Circuit held that the dismissal of unresolved counterclaims saved a notice filed after the resolution of all other claims.

And in Davison v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Tenth Circuit held that this cumulative-finality/relation-forward applied in the context of appeals from the Tax Court, even though no rule provided for it. The court went on to refuse to relate forward the notice in Davison, as the appellant had been notified of the deficiency of his premature notice.

Davison v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 2022 WL 2196884 (10th Cir. June 17, 2022), available at the Tenth Circuit and Westlaw.

Cimontubo – Tubagens e Soldadura, LDA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., 2022 WL 2155285 (2d Cir. June 15, 2022), available at CourtListener and Westlaw.

Redstone International, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 2022 WL 2128589 (4th Cir. June 14, 2022), available at the Fourth Circuit and Westlaw.

The Seventh Circuit Dismissed an Appeal From a Magistrate Judge’s Order

In Jaquez v. United States, the Seventh Circuit dismissed an appeal from a magistrate judge’s order. The issue (the petitioner sought discovery of material he might use in collaterally attacking his state conviction) was not one that the magistrate judge could resolve without the district court’s involvement. Nor had a district court properly referred the matter to a magistrate judge. And the parties had not consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. With no district court order, there was no appellate jurisdiction.

Jaquez v. United States, 2022 WL 1958154 (7th Cir. June 6, 2022), available at the Seventh Circuit and Westlaw.

The Opportunities for Qualified-Immunity Appeals

Two courts addressed purported qualified-immunity appeals from orders that did not actually deny qualified immunity.

In Carswell v. Camp, the Fifth Circuit heard a qualified-immunity appeal from a scheduling order that deferred decided a motion to dismiss. The district court had required the defendants to assert the immunity defense in their answer. The Fifth Circuit concluded that this scheduling order effectively denied immunity, giving the court of appeals jurisdiction.

But in Estate of McGuire v. Dodd, the Seventh Circuit dismissed a purported qualified-immunity appeal because the district court had not actually ruled on the immunity issue.

Carswell v. Camp, 2022 WL 2186363 (5th Cir. June 17, 2022), available at the Fifth Circuit and Westlaw.

Estate of McGuire v. Dodd, 2022 WL 2155102 (7th Cir. June 15, 2022), available at the Seventh Circuit and Westlaw.

Appealing Heck v. Humphrey Issues in Qualified-Immunity Appeals

In Crittindon v. LeBlanc, Judge Oldham of the Fifth Circuit discussed the Fifth Circuit’s new rule that Heck v. Humphrey issues are now within the scope of qualified-immunity appeals. He did so in the context of explaining why defendants had not briefed the Heck issue, as prevailing precedent at the time of briefing barred consideration of Heck.

Crittindon v. LeBlanc, 2022 WL 2092820 (5th Cir. June 10, 2022), available at the Fifth Circuit and Westlaw.

State Law Immunities

Appellate courts often allow appeals from the denial of state-law defenses that provide an immunity from suit. So in R.A. v. Johnson, the Fourth Circuit heard an immediate appeal from the denial of North Carolina’s public-official immunity for actions taken while overseeing a school district. And in Adame v. City of Surprise, the Ninth Circuit asked the Arizona Supreme Court to decide whether Arizona Revised Statutes 12-820.05(B) provided an immunity from suit or only a defense to liability.

R.A. v. Johnson, 2022 WL 2036384 (4th Cir. June 7, 2022), available at the Fourth Circuit and Westlaw.

Adame v. City of Surprise, 2022 WL 2126636 (9th Cir. June 14, 2022), available at the Ninth Circuit and Westlaw.

The Fifth Circuit on Pendent Appellate Jurisdiction

In Pickett v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, the Fifth Circuit refused to extend pendent appellate jurisdiction to substantive-due process claims as part of a state sovereign-immunity appeal. The sovereign-immunity appeal would not necessarily resolve the due process claims—the claims involved different facts and law. Extending pendent appellate jurisdiction would not further the purposes of officer immunities. And the due process issues were fully reviewable in an appeal from a final judgment.

Pickett v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 2022 WL 2154726 (5th Cir. June 15, 2022), available at the Fifth Circuit and Westlaw.

The Eleventh Circuit Dismissed an Appeal From an Order Refusing to Vacate a Receivership

In Bank of America, N.A. v. Jones, the Eleventh Circuit held that it could not immediately review the denial of a motion to vacate a receivership. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(2), the courts of appeals can hear immediate appeals from “[i]nterlocutory orders appointing receivers, or refusing orders to wind up receiverships or to take steps to accomplish the purposes thereof.” But an order refusing to vacate a receivership is neither of those. Nor would the Eleventh Circuit extend pendent appellate jurisdiction to the receivership order as part of an injunction appeal.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Jones, 2022 WL 1951591 (11th Cir. June 6, 2022), available at the Eleventh Circuit and Westlaw.

The Eleventh Circuit Dismissed an Appeal From a Clerk-Entered Judgment

In National Casualty Co. v. Georgia School Board Association-Risk Management Fund, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed an appeal from a clerk-entered judgment that came after a district court’s partial summary-judgment grant. The district court’s decision did not set the amount of damages or resolve all of the counterclaims. The parties then stipulated to those issues, and the deputy clerk entered a judgment. But the district court wasn’t involved. And the purported judgment was not even definitive on damages.

National Casualty Co. v. Georgia School Board Association-Risk Management Fund, 2022 WL 2131842 (11th Cir. June 14, 2022), available at the Eleventh Circuit and Westlaw.