Document: 515 U.S. 304115 S.Ct. 2151132 L.Ed.2d 238 Tyson JOHNSON, et al., Petitioners,v.Houston JONES. No. 94-455. Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 18, 1995. Decided June 12, Syllabus * Respondent Jones brought this "constitutional tort" action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against five named policemen, claiming that they used excessive force when arrested him and beat at police station. As government officials, officers were entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense. Three them (the petitioners here) moved for summary judgment arguing that, whatever evidence might have about other two officers, he could point no these three had beaten or been present during beatings. Holding there was sufficient circumstantial supporting Jones's theory case, District denied motion. Petitioners sought an immediate appeal, denial wrong because in pretrial record not show "genuine" issue fact trial, Fed. Rule Civ.Proc. 56(c). The Seventh Circuit held it lacked appellate jurisdiction over contention dismissed appeal. Held: A defendant, invoke defense, may appeal district court's order insofar as determines whether sets forth trial. Pp. ____. (a) background principles guide Court. First, 28 1291 grants courts hear appeals only from courts' "final decisions." Second, Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 541, 69 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528, subsequent decisions, so-called "collateral order" amounts immediately appealable decisio[n]" 1291, even though court entered long before case has ended, if (1) conclusively disputed question, (2) resolves important completely separate merits action, (3) will be effectively unreviewable on final judgment. Third, Mitchell Forsyth, 472 511, 528, 105 2806, 2816, 86 411, denying defendant's motion (i.e., decision") Cohen, where defendant public official asserting appealed concerned, which facts parties able prove, but, rather, certain given violation "clearly established" law. (b) Orders kind here are reasons. considered purely precedent, itself does support appealability underlying dispute therein involved application law (for purposes undisputed) set facts, explicitly limited its holding challenging, determination what factual issues "genuine," but legal established." although Cohen's conceptual finds "final" decision part involves significantly different those underlie plaintiff's basic often prove difficult find any such "separate" question simply wants is permit particular finding after Finally, competing considerations questions finality—the inconvenience costs piecemeal review, danger justice by delay, comparative expertise trial courts, wise use resources—argue extending encompass orders favor limiting interlocutory "qualified immunity" matters cases presenting more abstract (c) Neither petitioners' arguments why Court's effort reviewable determinations unworkable—that can easily manipulate great difficulty accomplishing separation—presents problem serious enough require conclusion. ____-____. 26 F.3d 727 (CA7 1994), affirmed. BREYER, J., delivered opinion unanimous Charles Rothfeld, Washington, DC, petitioners. Cornelia T.L. Pillard, amicus curiae, special leave Edward G. Proctor, Jr., Chicago, IL, respondent. Justice BREYER 1 This concerns officials—entitled defense action—who seek their motions resolved fact-related record, namely genuine We hold defendants cannot determination. And, we affirm similar Appeals Circuit. 2 plaintiff Houston Jones, diabetic. Police found street while having insulin seizure. thought drunk, him, took later himself hospital, with several broken ribs. Subsequently, policemen. Rev.Stat. 1979, amended, 1983. claimed policemen exces- sive 3 others did so. responded pointing his deposition, swore (though name them) arresting later, booking room station house. He also pointed officers' own depositions, admitted arrest near there. 4 wrote precedent indicated potential liability "stood allowed plaintiff." App. Pet. Cert. 7a. "sufficient [Jones's] case," id., 8a. 5 They argued, relevant part, contained "not scintilla . one more" "ever struck, punched kicked plaintiff, ever observed anyone doing so." Brief Appellants 93-3777 (CA7), p. 10. But, refused consider argument—namely improperly rejected raise triable) fact. "lack[ed] th[is] contention," i.e., "evidence insufficiency" "we didn't do it." 727, 728 1994). It consequently 6 Courts views claims made who qualified-immunity defenses. Compare, e.g., Kaminsky Rosenblum, 929 F.2d 922, 926 (CA2 1991) (saying exists); Giuffre Bissell, 31 1241, 1247 (CA3 1994) (same); Boulos Wilson, 834 504, 509 (CA5 1987) Elliott Thomas, 937 338, 341-342 (same), cert. denied, 502 1074, 1121, 112 973, 1242, 117 138, 475 (1992); Crawford-El Britton, 951 1314, 1317 (CADC Unwin Campbell, 863 124, 128 (CA1 1988) exist); Turner Dammon, 848 440, 444 (CA4 Kelly Bender, 23 1328, 1330 (CA8 Burgess Pierce County, 918 104, 106, n. (CA9 1990) (per curiam) Austin Hamilton, 945 1155, 1157, 1162-1163 (CA10 (same). therefore granted certiorari. 513 ----, 115 713, 130 621 (1995). II A. 7 our decide issue. statute decisions" courts. 1291. Given statute, appeals—appeals end proceedings—are exception, rule. recognizes rules too many cause harm. An make judges job—supervising proceedings. threaten proceedings adding diminishing coherence. risks additional, unnecessary, work either presents less developed records brings proceeded, would turned out unnecessary. See Richardson-Merrell Inc. Koller, 424, 430, 2757, 2760, 340 (1985); Flanagan States, 465 259, 263-264, 104 1051, 1053-1054, 79 288 (1984); Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Risjord, 449 368, 374, 101 669, 673, 66 571 (1981). 8 Of course, sometimes review countervailing benefits. In cases, avoid injustice quickly correcting error. simplify, appropriately direct, future course litigation. thereby reduce burdens proceedings, perhaps freeing party entirely. Congress authorized, through statutory provisions, (or empowered authorize appeals) classes cases—classes benefits well predominate. None "immediate appeal" statutes, however, applicable here. 1292 (immediate of, granting injunctions; authority "certify" questions); Fed.Rule 54(b) (authorizing "direct entry fewer than all parties"); §§ 1292(e) (1988 ed., Supp. V), 2072(c) V) promulgate designating kinds appealable); cf. 1651 federal "issue writs necessary appropriate," including mandamus). 9 1528 (1949), collateral amount decisions," here-relevant (perhaps before) ended. These orders" fell within "that small class finally determine right separable from, to, rights asserted independent consideration deferred until whole adjudicated." supra, 546, S.Ct., 1225-1226. 10 More recently, restated requiring " '[1] [2] resolve [3] judgment.' Puerto Rico Aqueduct Sewer Authority Metcalf Eddy, Inc., 506 113 684, 688, 121 605 (1993) (brackets original) (quoting Coopers Lybrand Livesay, 437 463, 468, 98 2454, 2458, 57 351 (1978)). 11 determining requirements help qualify seem comparatively strong disfavor weak. requirement 'effectively unreviewable' on, example, means failure significant 15A C. Wright, Miller, E. Cooper, Federal Practice Procedure 3911, pp. 334-335 (1992) (hereinafter Wright Miller). "conclusively determine" likely needed Id., 333. matter now approximately same very similar) once, seems delay (for, truly collateral, continue pending). 333-334. 12 411 (1985), immunity," showed 2816; see Harlow Fitzgerald, 457 800, 818, 102 2727, 2738, 73 396 (1982) (holding officials "liability civil damages conduct violate clearly established reasonable person known"). Applying criteria, was, sense, "effectively unreviewable," come late vindicate purpose namely, protecting liability, standing Mitchell, 525-527, 2815-2816. For related reasons, conclusive, "conclusively" settled suit. U.S., 527, 2816. 13 "separability" "completely action," concluded that: 14 "it follows recognition entitlement forced litigate consequences claim conceptually distinct violated." 527-528, 2816 (emphasis added). 15 said "conceptual distinctness" claim, 16 "appellate reviewing need correctness version nor allegations actually state claim. All law: norms allegedly violated time challenged actions or, ground law, proscribed took." (footnote omitted). B 17 portion sufficiency," may, not, order, conclude, appealable. That is, raised concerning involvement alleged beating respondent decision" meaning statute. so essentially 18 itself, precedent. facts. Court, opinion, 56(c), referred specifically "denial immunity, extent turns law." 530, 2817 "emphasize[d] one: (by some defendant) 9, 2817, 9. distinguished permitting "a ruling decided reference undisputed isolation remaining case." 10, explained separability saying "[a]n facts." Although language sounds imply contrary, read context. See, 526, 2815 (referring judgment, appealability, "defendant discovery fails uncover create issue"). 19 consider, context sufficiency" appealability—the scope jurisdictional statute's requirement. case. just out, rested upon view claim." because, practically intertwined merits, nonetheless raises absence immunity). 20 Where, question—one merits. Anderson Liberty Lobby, 477 242, 248, 106 2505, 2510, 91 202 (1986) (district task, deciding fact, "if jury return verdict nonmoving party"); F.2d, 341 ("whether deeds precisely trial") original), South Arkansas Regional Health Center, 800 199, 203 1986) "is merits" ); ("[i]n regarding sufficiency closely merits"). 21 suggested implicitly recognized "the protect further trial" justifies relaxation Miller 3914.10, 656; 344-345; 3911.2, 387; Tr. Oral Arg. ("where tried stake, [closer] association tolerated") (argument States). Assuming so, despite interest avoiding issue, separability. To take call step beyond relax requirement—it abandon it. 22 finality. categories rather individual orders. Digital Equipment Corp. Desktop Direct, 511 ---- - 114 1992, 1993, 842 (1994). Thus, each engage ad hoc balancing appealability. generally P. Bator, D. Meltzer, Mishkin, Shapiro, Hart Wechsler's System 1810 (3d ed. 1988). mean delineating categories, should look finality—'the hand other.' Eisen Carlisle Jacquelin, 417 156, 171, 94 2140, 2149, 40 732 (1974) Dickinson Petroleum Conversion 338 507, 70 322, 324, 299 (1950)). considerations, discussed above Part II-A, argue us. thing, stake—the existence, non-existence triable fact—is judges, confront almost daily. Institutionally speaking, enjoy matters. Cf. Underwood, 487 552, 560-561, 108 2541, 2547-2548, 490 (1988); 584, 2560 (White, concurring dissenting part) (noting "special experience courts" lies "assessing relative applications norms") (internal quotation marks extent, bring error-correcting Mitchell. Richardson-Merrell, 434, 2763 (stating "[m]ost [of issue] ultimately affirmed militated appealability). 24 another demonstrates appealable, consume inordinate time. Many constitutional tort unlike simple it" us, involve controversies about, intent—controversies nebulous. controversies—to matter—may reading vast numerous conflicting affidavits, depositions materials. means, compared greater delay. 25 third close connection between surface court, instances upholds faced again, change (brought testimony) it, once canvass record. say, sense makes unwise time, forcing anyway better decision. 664 ("if [immunity appeals] risk waste duplicating investigations successive appeals"). upshot resources, Considering "competing considerations," persuaded "[i]mmunity interfere rule [are] neat Ibid.; Aqueduct, 689 argument distinction fact-based law-based appeals, seeing "basis drawing" respect hand); 85 (1995 pocket part). 27 recognize pre-existing still forces 11-16. threatens undercut policy (protecting lawsuits) held) militates appeals. Nonetheless, mentioned (precedent, fidelity policies) extension sort C mention point. unworkable. say holding. seeking otherwise order. "[H]ere, example," "petitioners contended unclear how much exerted suspects resist arrest." 29, 11. 29 think problem. concede determined automatically follow reviewed participated at) beating. Even assuming, sake argument, appropriate exercise "pendent jurisdiction" matter, Swint Chambers County Comm'n, 514 1203, 1211-1212, 131 60, unlikely appears lead see, Natale Ridgefield, 927 101, pendent proper "exceptional circumstances"); ex rel. Valders Stone Marble, C-Way Constr. Co., 909 262 'compelling reasons' "). 30 add, try order's (that violates law) "genuine"), deny without indicating reasons How, know assume answers law? serious, us When mistakenly identified take, given, assumed (purely legal) reason. Knowing "extremely helpful court," Anderson, 250, 6, 2511, presumably undertake cumbersome light most favorable party, assumed. Regardless, circumstance critical difference result, occasionally requires detailed evidence-based still, practical view, manageable urge adopt. approach note, too, circuits Yet, concrete examples unmanageability fear. III 32 33 Affirmed. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499.

Category: 8