Opinion ID: 2818186
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Donaghy Had Probable Cause

Text: Donaghy contends that, even if probable cause was required, he is entitled to qualified immunity because he had probable cause when issuing the detainer against Morales, or, at the very least, the law was not clearly established in 2009 that the circumstances applicable to the issuance of the detainer did not constitute probable cause. Donaghy's argument relies on sworn declarations that he attached to his motion for summary judgment and reply brief in the district court. In those declarations, Donaghy contends that he made the decision to issue the detainer after reviewing various state and federal computer databases and determining that Morales was a non-citizen who had entered the United States without inspection and [was] present in the United States without authorization. Donaghy Decl., Dkt. 20-3 at 2, No. 1:12-cv-00301-M-DLM (D.R.I. filed Sept. 4, 2012). In particular, Donaghy asserts that he analyzed the ACI's database and two federal databases, the Central Index System and the National Crime Information Center databases. After reviewing these databases, he concluded that Morales was born in Guatemala, that she had made no claim of being a United States citizen, and that there was probable cause to issue an ICE detainer against her. Second Donaghy Decl., Dkt. 47-1 at 2, No. 1:12-cv-00301-M-DLM (D.R.I. filed Jan. 19, 2013). -20- As we have said time and again, [w]e have jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of a denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity only insofar as the appeal rests on legal, rather than factual grounds. Cady, 753 F.3d at 350 (citing Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313 (1995)); Goguen v. Allen, 780 F.3d 437, 438 (1st Cir. 2015) (dismissing interlocutory appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction because defendants' arguments take issue with the district court's factual assessments and do not present a pure issue of law for this court's consideration); Penn v. Escorsio, 764 F.3d 102, 111 (1st Cir. 2014) (holding that jurisdiction for interlocutory appeal was lacking where defendants' arguments rested on factual, not legal, grounds). In this case, Morales disputes that Donaghy and his fellow ICE agents conducted a sufficient database search with regard to her citizenship status. The complaint alleges that federal immigration authorities maintain records of naturalization applications in their databases, and ICE could easily have accessed the information in its possession and confirmed that Ms. Morales was a U.S. citizen before subjecting her to a detainer in 2009. Compl. ¶ 40. She specifically alleges that Donaghy failed to sufficiently investigate Ms. Morales’s immigration status before issuing the detainer. Id. ¶ 38. She adds that Donaghy could have easily conducted further research to verify whether Ms. Morales was a U.S. citizen, but he failed to do so. Id. ¶ 39. -21- Also, Morales has not had the opportunity to conduct any discovery to assess the credibility of the assertions that Donaghy made in his declarations. Therefore, Donaghy would like us to grant him qualified immunity based on his own version of the facts, even though the district court did not accept Donaghy's version of the facts. He fails to understand that in exercising our interlocutory appellate jurisdiction, we are required to take, as given, the facts that the district court assumed when it denied summary judgment. Johnson, 515 U.S. at 319. Because Donaghy's argument clearly rests on factual grounds and does not present a pure issue of law, his appeal on this ground must be dismissed for want of appellate jurisdiction.4 Goguen, 780 F.3d at 438; see also Johnson, 515 U.S. at 317 (stating that an interlocutory appeal . . . makes unwise use of appellate courts' time when it forc[es] them to decide in the context of a less developed record, an issue very similar to one they may well decide anyway later, on a record that will permit a better decision).