Opinion ID: 710938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Fanter Appeal

Text: 12 Unlike the Pellegrino appeal, we question whether we have jurisdiction with respect to the appeal of Agent Fanter. After this matter was argued and submitted, the Supreme Court decided Johnson v. Jones, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995), which held that, in a qualified immunity case, a district court determination that a summary judgment record raising genuine issues of fact is not a final judgment within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 and is therefore not appealable. --- U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2156. 2 The Supreme Court in Johnson framed the issue as follows: 13 This case concerns governmental officials--entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense in a 'constitutional tort' action--who seek an immediate appeal of a district court order denying their motions for summary judgment. The order in question resolved a fact-related dispute about the pretrial record, namely whether or not the evidence in the pretrial record was sufficient to show a genuine issue of fact for trial. 14 Id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2153. 15 In dealing with the issue before us, we are mindful of the Supreme Court's admonition in Johnson:[T]he issue here at stake--the existence, or non-existence of a triable issue of fact--is the kind of issue that trial judges, not appellate judges, confront almost daily. Institutionally speaking, appellate judges enjoy no comparative expertise in such matters. 16 Id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2157.