Opinion ID: 617431
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiffs’ Claim Against Strain

Text: For different reasons, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order with respect to Plaintiffs’ claim against Strain. Because Strain is being sued in his official capacity as St. Tammany Parish Sheriff, the suit against him is “in essence” a suit against a municipality. See Woodard v. Andrus, 419 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978)). “Municipal governments may not raise immunity defenses on interlocutory appeal.” Jacobs v. W. Feliciana Sheriff’s Dep’t, 228 F.3d 388, 392 (5th Cir. 2000). Acknowledging this jurisdictional hurdle, Strain urges us to exercise “pendent appellate jurisdiction” over the district court’s order with respect to Plaintiffs’ claim against him. “[I]n rare and unique circumstances where a final appealable order is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with an unappealable order or where review of the unappealable order is necessary to ensure meaningful review of the appealable order,” we may exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction. Byrum v. Landreth, 566 F.3d 442, 449–50 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Thornton v. GM, 136 F.3d 450, 453 (5th Cir. 1998)). Because we lack jurisdiction over Steinert’s appeal, however, there is no appealable order to which Strain’s appeal can be pendent. Accordingly, it too is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction