Opinion ID: 790419
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 15 As a threshold matter, we must first determine whether we have jurisdiction to consider Bailey's interlocutory appeal. In Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that 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. In these cases, the appealable issue is purely a legal one: whether the facts alleged (by the plaintiff, or, in some cases, the defendant) support a claim of violation of clearly established law. Id. at 528 n. 9, 105 S.Ct. 2806. By contrast, in Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319-20, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995), the Court held that a defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal a district court's summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a `genuine' issue of fact for trial. The Court noted that an interlocutory appeal concerning this kind of issue in a sense makes unwise use of appellate courts' time, by forcing 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. Id. at 317, 115 S.Ct. 2151. Therefore, put clearly, [a] denial of qualified immunity on purely legal grounds is immediately appealable. A denial of qualified immunity that turns on evidentiary issues is not. Turner v. Scott, 119 F.3d 425, 427 (6th Cir.1997) (internal citation omitted). 16 In this case, the district court denied Bailey's motion for summary judgment because of a factual dispute between the parties. Specifically, there is a dispute about where Sample's right hand was at the time that Bailey fired his weapon. Sample stated that he was reaching out to grab the edge of the top of the cabinet to pull himself out, while Bailey claims that Sample put his hand in his jacket pocket. The district court concluded that the factual dispute was critical in determining whether Bailey's use of deadly force violated Sample's clearly established constitutional right. 17 On appeal however, Bailey does not raise the issue of the location of Sample's hand, but instead argues that even under Sample's version of the facts, he is entitled to qualified immunity. Therefore, the issue before this court is a neat abstract issue of law, id. at 428, whether the facts as alleged by Sample demonstrate a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 over Bailey's appeal of the district court's denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity.