Opinion ID: 2976615
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Propriety of Interlocutory Appellate Review

Text: As a threshold matter, Plaintiff disputes our jurisdiction to conduct an interlocutory -8- No. 06-4371 Abel v. Harp review of Defendants’ appeal. In raising this jurisdictional argument, Plaintiff relies on Phelps v. Coy, which explained that [i]f . . . 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, otherwise, we cannot entertain the defendant’s arguments, no matter how meritorious they may be. 286 F.3d 205, 298 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Berryman, 150 F.3d at 563) (internal citations omitted). Plaintiff is correct in pointing out that Defendants’ brief on appeal is replete with alternative characterizations of the facts; however, Plaintiff’s interpretation of Phelps is unpersuasive. After setting forth the standard for appeals of denials of summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, the Phelps Court went on to explain that “[w]here . . . the legal issues are discrete from the factual disputes, we may [nevertheless] exercise our jurisdiction to resolve the legal issues only.” Id. Thus, although Defendants dispute Abel’s version of the facts, they still request us to address “a series of strictly legal questions[,]” namely, whether Plaintiff’s rights were so clearly established during the altercation that a reasonable officer would have known what standard governed his conduct, and whether Defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable in light of that standard. Accordingly, we may properly exercise jurisdiction over Defendants’ interlocutory appeal, notwithstanding Defendants’ dispute of the facts.