Opinion ID: 1463049
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review a district court's denial of qualified immunity de novo. Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 742 (6th Cir.2005). The appeal of a denial of qualified immunity at summary judgment is an interlocutory appeal that we hear as a final decision of the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. Id (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth v. 472 U.S. 511, 525-27, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985)). We may only review the denial of qualified immunity to the extent that the appeal involves the abstract or pure legal issue of whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff constitute a violation of clearly established law. Id. (quoting Berryman v. Rieger, 150 F.3d 561, 563 (6th Cir.1998)). If . . . the defendant disputes the plaintiff's version of the story, the defendant must nonetheless be willing to concede the most favorable view of the facts to the plaintiff for purposes of the appeal. Only if the undisputed facts or the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff fail to establish a prima facie violation of clear constitutional law may we decide that the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on an interlocutory appeal. Berryman, 150 F.3d at 563 (citations omitted). Hence, although the district court couched its ruling in terms of factual disputes, the pure legal issue legitimately before us on appeal concerns whether Begin's display of his firearm in conjunction with ordering plaintiffs to lie face-down on the ground for a period of time undisputedly no greater than two minutesuntil additional law enforcement support arrived and control of the scene was assumed by a superior officerconstituted an unreasonable seizure or an excessive use of force in violation of plaintiffs' clearly established rights, of which a reasonable officer would have known. See Smoak v. Hall, 460 F.3d 768, 777 (6th Cir.2006) (recognizing propriety of interlocutory appeal notwithstanding district court's fact-based rationale where defendant-appellant accepts plaintiff's version of facts for purpose of presenting a neat abstract issue of law).