Opinion ID: 160968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jurisdiction: Immediate Appeal from Denial of Summary Judgment in Qualified Immunity Cases

Text: 11 A district court's denial of a defendant's summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity is an immediately appealable collateral order when the issue appealed concerns whether certain facts demonstrate a violation of clearly established law. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 527-28 (1985) (concluding summary judgment order deciding qualified immunity issues satisfies the test from Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949), because it is effectively unreviewable, separate from the merits, and conclusively settles the issue of a defendant's immunity from suit). The Supreme Court has, however, cautioned that not every denial of summary judgment following the assertion of qualified immunity is immediately appealable. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313 (1995). Courts of appeals clearly lack jurisdiction to review summary judgment orders deciding qualified immunity questions solely on the basis of evidence sufficiency-which facts a party may, or may not, be able to prove at trial. Id. Consequently, an order will not be immediately appealable unless it present[s] more abstract issues of law. Id. at 317. 12 Hence, we have observed that defendants may not immediately appeal a pretrial order deciding nothing more than whether the evidence could support a finding that particular conduct occurred. Foote v. Spiegel, 118 F.3d 1416, 1422 (10th Cir. 1997). We need not, however, decline review of a pretrial order denying summary judgment solely because the district court says genuine issues of material fact remain; instead, we lack jurisdiction only if our review would require second-guessing the district court's determinations of evidence sufficiency. Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 312-13 (1996) (Denial of summary judgment often includes a determination that there are controverted issues of material fact... and Johnson surely does not mean that every such denial of summary judgment is non-appealable.). An order denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity necessarily involves a legal determination that certain alleged actions violate clearly established law. Id. at 313. Defendants may therefore assert on appeal that all of the conduct which the District court deemed sufficiently supported for purposes of summary judgment meets the applicable legal standards. Id. Even when the district court concludes issues of material fact exist, we have reviewed the legal question of whether a defendant's conduct, as alleged by the plaintiff, violates clearly established law. Malik v. Arapahoe County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 191 F.3d 1306, 1315 (10th Cir. 1999); Clanton v. Cooper, 129 F.3d 1147, 1153 (10th Cir. 1997); see also Wilson v. Meeks, 98 F.3d 1247, 1251-52 (10th Cir. 1996) [hereinafter Wilson II] (noting that-following Johnson and Behrens-other circuits characterize review of whether the plaintiff's version of the facts establishes a constitutional violation as a legal question, which is immediately appealable).