Opinion ID: 170083
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Undisputed Facts and Qualified Immunity

Text: It should be noted at the beginning that Officer Jones assumed the facts as presented by Ms. Segura. While the district court noted a discrepancy in the parties’ accounts of what happened, stemming from various depositions given by Officer Jones and Ms. Segura, defense counsel stated in his opening brief, and reiterated at oral argument, that Officer Jones did not dispute Ms. Segura’s factual account. This is an important point, because as Cortez II pointed out, this particular issue impacts not only the factual record in the case but also jurisdiction: [o]f course, this court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal from the denial of a defendant's summary judgment order based on qualified immunity insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a genuine issue of fact for trial. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319-20, 115 S.Ct. 2151. We may exercise jurisdiction over such an order when we are presented with “neat abstract issues of law.” Clanton v. Cooper, 129 F.3d 1147, 1153 (10th Cir.1997). Cortez II, 478 F.3d at 1121 n. 16. -7- In the instant case, the facts are not in dispute. For comparative purposes, in Barrie v. Grand County, Utah, 119 F.3d 862 (10th Cir. 1997), we ruled that the district court properly denied the defendant’s qualified immunity based motion for summary judgment because there “was a genuine dispute as to just what happened.” 119 F.3d 862, 866. In Cruz v. City of Laramie, Wyoming, we noted the Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313 (1995), directing appellate courts that they “may not review a district court's resolution of disputed facts, but may review only purely legal determinations...” 239 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2001). Therefore, our inquiry into whether the district court erred in denying Officer Jones’s qualified immunity based summary judgment motion may proceed precisely because the “what happened questions” are agreed upon by the parties and all that remain are the questions of law.