Unpragmatic and Unnecessary, Extended Edition
Updated July 2021: The article has been published in the Georgia Law Review (55 Ga. L. Rev. 959 (2021)), and the final version is available on SSRN.
Last year year I wrote that Scott v. Harris’s blatant-contradiction rule for qualified-immunity appeals is an unpragmatic and unnecessary rule that should be rejected. I also noted that I was working on an article that argued as much and used an original dataset of every blatant-contradiction decision in the 12 years since Scott to show why. The article—called Assumed Facts and Blatant Contradictions in Qualified-Immunity Appeals—is now up on SSRN.
Here’s the abstract:
When a district court denies qualified immunity at summary judgment, defendants have a limited right to immediately appeal that decision. In Johnson v. Jones, the Supreme Court held that the courts of appeals have jurisdiction to address only whether the facts assumed by the district court amount to a clearly established violation of federal law. They lack jurisdiction to look behind the facts that the district assumed were true to see whether the evidence supports those facts. Despite this seemingly clear rule, defendants regularly flout Johnson‘s jurisdictional limits, taking improper appeals, creating extra work for appellate courts, and imposing wholly unnecessary costs and delays on civil rights plaintiffs. Plaintiffs and even courts also are sometimes confused by the rule in Johnson. And the Supreme Court’s decision in Scott v. Harris — which appeared to violate Johnson‘s limits without mentioning Johnson or even appellate jurisdiction — has made the jurisdictional rules governing qualified-immunity appeals even less certain.
In this article, I address the law governing jurisdiction in qualified-immunity appeals from summary judgment. I show that Johnson can be read only to mean that the courts of appeals generally lack jurisdiction to review whether the summary-judgment record supports the district court’s assumed facts. I explain how to reconcile the analysis in Scott with the rule in Johnson: Scott created an exception to the general limit on reviewing the district court’s assumed facts when something in the record blatantly contradicts those facts. I argue—based on my analysis of 12 years of decisions invoking this exception—that Scott‘s blatant-contradiction exception is neither pragmatic nor needed. And I offer reforms, via Supreme Court decision or rulemaking, that would both clarify and improve the law governing qualified-immunity appeals.
You can download the paper here.
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
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....
I’ve frequently written about the problem of fact-based qualified-immunity appeals both on this website and in my research. I recently decided to collect some new data on how much needless delay these appeals add to civil-rights litigation. I had done something similar a few years ago when writing about the need to sanction defendants for […]
Continue reading....
In Fleming v. United States, the Eleventh Circuit became the fifth court of appeals to reject pure Bivens appeals. The court held that federal officials cannot immediately appeal the Bivens question without also appealing the denial of qualified immunity. Unlike some of the prior decisions, this one was unanimous. And it puts the government’s record […]
Continue reading....
In New Albany Main Street Properties v. Watco Companies, LLC, the Sixth Circuit held that it could not review a decision granting leave to amend as part of a qualified-immunity appeal. The leave-to-amend decision was not itself immediately appealable. Nor could it tag along with the denial of immunity (which technically involved qualified immunity under […]
Continue reading....
In Blackwell v. Nocerini, the Sixth Circuit held that a motion to reconsider reset the time to take a qualified-immunity appeal. The denial of immunity was immediately appealable and thus a “judgment” under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So a motion to reconsider that denial was effectively a motion under Federal Rule of Civil […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
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....
I’ve frequently written about the problem of fact-based qualified-immunity appeals both on this website and in my research. I recently decided to collect some new data on how much needless delay these appeals add to civil-rights litigation. I had done something similar a few years ago when writing about the need to sanction defendants for […]
Continue reading....
Yesterday, I filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Parrish v. United States, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court. The case asks if an appellant must file a new notice of appeal after the district court reopens the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). Both the […]
Continue reading....