IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-60357

Summary Calendar

DAVID CHATMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KEITH MILES, in his individual capacity,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:09-CV-205

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Chatman, Mississippi prisoner # 30344, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983

lawsuit against several defendants, including Keith Miles,1for violations of his

constitutional rights while he was a pretrial detainee in 2008.2 Chatman alleged

that Miles, a narcotics officer with the Adams County Sheriff’s Office, used

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 8, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

1 Miles’s last name is correctly spelled “Myles.”

2 Miles is the only remaining defendant in the suit. The other defendants were either

dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement or were granted summary judgment.

 Case: 12-60357 Document: 00512200702 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2013
No. 12-60357

excessive force against him, resulting in injuries to his neck. The parties

consented to proceed before a magistrate judge (MJ). Miles moved for summary

judgment, asserting, inter alia, that he was entitled to qualified immunity. The

MJ observed that Miles’s version of events was “significantly different from

Chatman’s sworn hearing testimony.” The MJ found that the evidence in the

record raised “questions of fact as to whether Chatman presented a danger to

anyone when he was taken into the room; whether any threat perceived by Miles

was reasonable; whether force was necessary under the circumstances; and

whether the force used was commensurate with the need for force, if any.” 

Because “[e]xactly what transpired in the room at the jail remains in dispute,”

and because a jury could find that Miles violated Chatman’s right to be free from

excessive force if Chatman’s version of the events is credited, the MJ concluded

that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Miles was

entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the MJ denied Miles’s motion for

summary judgment.

Miles filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of his summary

judgment motion based on qualified immunity. The denial of a motion for

summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is a collateral order capable

of immediate review. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985). However,

the court’s jurisdiction to review the denial is “significantly limited,” extending

to questions of law only. Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337, 346 (5th Cir. 2004) (en

banc). “Whenever the district court denies an official’s motion for summary

judgment predicated upon qualified immunity, the district court can be thought

of as making two distinct determinations, even if only implicitly.” Kinney, 367

F.3d at 346. “First, the district court decides that a certain course of conduct

would, as a matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly

established law. Second, the court decides that a genuine issue of fact exists

regarding whether the defendant(s) did, in fact, engage in such conduct.” Id. 

“According to the Supreme Court, as well as [this court’s] own precedents, [this

2

 Case: 12-60357 Document: 00512200702 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2013
No. 12-60357

court] lack[s] jurisdiction to review conclusions of the second type on

interlocutory appeal.” Id. “[The court does], however, have jurisdiction to the

review the first type of determination, the purely legal question whether a given

course of conduct would be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly

established law.” Id. at 347.

On appeal, Miles argues that the use of force was reasonable and

necessary because Chatman lunged at him and Miles perceived Chatman as

being dangerous to himself or others in the room. He further argues that

Chatman suffered no more than a de minimis injury and that any lingering

problems with his neck were related to a subsequent injury. Miles’s arguments

are directed at the truth of the factual allegations made by Chatman. By

arguing that the force was justified in this case, Miles is essentially challenging

the MJ’s determination that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding

exactly what took place in the room off of the booking room. This is precisely the

type of question that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain in this interlocutory

appeal. See Kinney, 367 F.3d at 346. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

3

 Case: 12-60357 Document: 00512200702 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/08/2013