Opinion ID: 710938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jurisdiction & The Merits

Text: 9 We have jurisdiction of the Pellegrino appeal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 and we affirm. With respect to Woods, the district court properly ruled that Bivens liability is premised on proof of direct personal responsibility. Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d 599, 621 n. 30 (2d Cir.1980) cert. denied, 451 U.S. 908, 101 S.Ct. 1975, 68 L.Ed.2d 295 (1981). Nor, in the absence of such proof, can Woods be held vicariously liable for the conduct of another. Sportique Fashions, Inc. v. Sullivan, 597 F.2d 664, 666 (9th Cir.1979). 10 The district court was also on solid ground in granting summary judgment with respect to the false imprisonment claims against both agents. The decision of a law enforcement officer to approach and temporarily detain someone in order to gather more information has been a fixed star in the law of arrest since Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880-81, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Such investigatory stops do not require probable cause to arrest, but are reviewed under the standard of founded suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot. United States v. Taylor, 716 F.2d 701, 708 (9th Cir.1983). Nor is the use of force during a Terry stop in and of itself unreasonable where the force is justified by concern for the safety of the officer or others. United States v. Harrington, 923 F.2d 1371, 1373 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 854, 112 S.Ct. 164, 116 L.Ed.2d 128 (1991). 11 The decision of the district court to enter summary judgment as to Agent Woods on all counts and to also enter summary judgment as to Agent Fanter on the false imprisonment claims was well founded and supported by the record.
12 Unlike the Pellegrino appeal, we question whether we have jurisdiction with respect to the appeal of Agent Fanter. After this matter was argued and submitted, the Supreme Court decided Johnson v. Jones, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995), which held that, in a qualified immunity case, a district court determination that a summary judgment record raising genuine issues of fact is not a final judgment within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 and is therefore not appealable. --- U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2156. 2 The Supreme Court in Johnson framed the issue as follows: 13 This case concerns governmental officials--entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense in a 'constitutional tort' action--who seek an immediate appeal of a district court order denying their motions for summary judgment. The order in question resolved a fact-related dispute about the pretrial record, namely whether or not the evidence in the pretrial record was sufficient to show a genuine issue of fact for trial. 14 Id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2153. 15 In dealing with the issue before us, we are mindful of the Supreme Court's admonition in Johnson:[T]he issue here at stake--the existence, or non-existence of a triable issue of fact--is the kind of issue that trial judges, not appellate judges, confront almost daily. Institutionally speaking, appellate judges enjoy no comparative expertise in such matters. 16 Id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 2157.