Opinion ID: 868663
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: We have jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of the district court’s denial of qualified immunity under the collateral order doctrine. See McNeese, 675 F.3d at 1161. “‘[A]n order denying qualified immunity is immediately appealable even though it is interlocutory; otherwise, it would be effectively unreviewable.’” Id. at 1160 (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 376 n.2 (2007)) (alteration in original). -3- Our interlocutory jurisdiction is limited. See id. at 1160. We may review a district court’s order denying qualified immunity “‘to the extent that it turns on an issue of law.’” Id. at 1160-61 (quoting Fields v. Abbott, 652 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2011)). We have no jurisdiction to determine “‘whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a “genuine” issue of fact for trial.’” Id. (quoting Johnson, 515 U.S. at 320). As we recognized in McNeese, our interlocutory jurisdiction turns on whether the appellant asserting qualified immunity raises predominantly legal, or predominantly factual, issues. See id. We had jurisdiction in McNeese because the appellant’s arguments “challenge[d] the district court’s application of qualified immunity principles to the established summary judgment facts.” Id. In the instant case the officers’ arguments do not call for us to “‘resolve any disputed issues of evidentiary sufficiency.’” Id. (quoting Heartland Acad. Cmty. Church v. Waddle, 595 F.3d 798, 806 (8th Cir. 2010)). The officers raise only legal issues regarding “the application of qualified immunity principles” to the facts of this case, id., and we thus have jurisdiction to address the qualified immunity issue.