Opinion ID: 2975678
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The first issue on appeal is whether we have jurisdiction. As a general matter, our Court has jurisdiction to review “final orders” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “[A] district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985). However, “[t]o the extent that a denial of summary judgment finding qualified immunity inappropriate is based upon the district court's determination that a genuine issue of material fact exists, the decision will not be immediately appealable.” Crockett v. Cumberland College, 316 F.3d 571, 578 (6th Cir. 2003). Therefore, “if what is at issue in the appeal is nothing more than whether the evidence could support a finding that particular conduct occurred, there is no appellate jurisdiction because that question is inseparable from the merits of 06-1995 Preyor v. City of Ferndale Page 7 the plaintiff’s claim.” Berryman v. Rieger, 150 F.3d 561, 563 (6th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted); Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319 (1995). The district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion was based on its determination that “genuine issues of material fact” remain as to whether Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Preyor’s serious medical needs. However,“[t]he district court’s assertion that there are genuine issues of material fact does not, standing alone, destroy the appealability of a qualified immunity ruling.” Turner v. Scott, 119 F.3d 425, 428 (6th Cir. 1997); see also Christophel v. Kukulinsky, 61 F.3d 479, 485 (6th Cir. 1995) (“A defendant’s right to appeal the denial of qualified immunity does not turn on the phrasing of the district court’s order . . . .”). If a defendant concedes (for the purposes of appeal) “the best view of the facts to the plaintiff[,]” Berryman, 150 F.3d at 564, the Court has jurisdiction to determine the remaining legal question of qualified immunity: “whether the facts as alleged by [plaintiff] demonstrate a violation of a clearly established constitutional right,” Sample v. Bailey, 409 F.3d 689, 695 (6th Cir. 2005) (finding jurisdiction because plaintiff “[did] not raise the issue of [fact contested in the district court]”); Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693, 701 (6th Cir. 2001) (finding jurisdiction “[a]lthough factual issues were contested before the district court [because,] for the purposes of [the] appeal, both parties ha[d] explicitly stipulated to plaintiff’s version of facts”). Although Defendants have contested factual issues in their appellate briefs, they purported to correct their position at oral argument and conceded “the best view of the facts to the Plaintiff[.]” Berryman, 150 F.3d at 564. To the extent that the substance of their arguments reveal that they are essentially contesting Plaintiff’s version of the facts, we ignore these attempts and address only the purely legal issues. See Estate of Carter v. City of Detroit, 408 F.3d 305, 310 (6th Cir. 2005). 06-1995 Preyor v. City of Ferndale Page 8 Therefore, “[b]ecause the case before us turns on whether Plaintiff’s facts, admitted by Defendants for purposes of this appeal, show a violation of clearly established law, not on which facts the parties may be able to prove, the district court’s denial of qualified immunity is a ‘final order’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we have jurisdiction to decide the case on merits.” Williams v. Mehra, 186 F. 3d 685, 690 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted).