Opinion ID: 3011350
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Qualified-Immunity Claim

Text: In addition to seeking interlocutory review of his goodfaith defense, Kulaylat also invites us to consider his claim to qualified immunity. We decline to do so because Kulaylat failed to raise qualified immunity as a basis for summary judgment. As a general rule, we will not review an issue on appeal that has not been raised below. See Pritzker v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 7 F.3d 1110, 1115 (3d Cir. 1993); see also Singleton v. Wulff , 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976). Although we have made exceptions where failure to consider the issue would result in manifest injustice, see Pritzker, 7 F.3d at 1115 (citing Houghton v. American Guar. Life Ins. Co., 692 F.2d 289, 294 (3d Cir. 1982)), we find no potential for manifest injustice here. The interlocutory nature of this appeal leaves Kulaylat with full opportunity to assert his qualified-immunity claim in the District Court. The only remaining questions, which revolve around Kulaylat's subjective state of mind, are factual rather than legal. The District Court concluded that [v]iewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, [the record] establishes a material fact concerning Dr. Kulaylat's mental state, that is, whether he acted with deliberate indifference. Dist. Ct. Order at 3. Accordingly, we would lack jurisdiction to consider Kulaylat's qualified-immunity claim even had he asserted it as a basis for summary judgment below.