Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02763/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02763-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2763

___________

John E. Searcy, Jr., *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

J. Roberts, Individually and in his *

official capacity as an officer of the * [UNPUBLISHED]

Arkansas State Police; M. Young, *

Individually and in his official capacity *

as an officer of the Arkansas State *

Police, *

*

Appellants. *

___________

Submitted: June 2, 2005

Filed: June 20, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this interlocutory appeal, Arkansas State Police Officers J. Roberts and

M. Young appeal the District Court’s denial of their renewed summary judgment

motion.

Appellate Case: 04-2763 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2005 Entry ID: 1917539
-2-

While appellants based their summary judgment motion in part on qualified

immunity, in the brief order denying the motion and a cross-motion for summary

judgment, the District Court merely found “that issues of fact remain[ed] with respect

to the issues presented by both parties’ motions . . . which will require the attention

of a jury.” Because we cannot conclude that the District Court ruled on the qualifiedimmunity issue, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See Swint v. Chambers County

Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 41-42 (1995) (28 U.S.C. § 1291 permits appeals from small

category of decisions that, although they do not end litigation, are nonetheless

considered final, but appeals are disallowed from any decision which is tentative,

informal, or incomplete); Bradford v. Huckabee, 330 F.3d 1038, 1040 (8th Cir. 2003)

(jurisdiction to review qualified-immunity issue on interlocutory appeal depends upon

whether district court actually decided issue; inference that qualified-immunity

defense was denied is insufficient); Krein v. Norris, 250 F.3d 1184, 1187 (8th Cir.

2001) (when there is indication that jurisdiction is lacking, issue will be raised sua

sponte by federal court); cf. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 310-11 (1995) (collateral

order constitutes immediately appealable final order if, inter alia, it conclusively

determines disputed question, and resolves important issue completely separate from

merits). 

We note in passing that police officers ordinarily have probable cause to arrest

an individual who is driving with expired license plates. In the present case, both

officers signed affidavits indicating that the expired plates formed part of the

probable cause for the stop and arrest of Mr. Searcy. In both cases Mr. Searcy was

convicted of driving with the expired plates. We are confident the District Court will

appropriately weigh these matters in ruling on the officers' assertion of qualified

immunity.

We remand to the District Court for a determination of the qualified-immunity

issue and for any further proceedings that may be necessary. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2763 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2005 Entry ID: 1917539