Opinion ID: 3011350
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Good-Faith Claim

Text: As a general rule, we have no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. S 1291 to review interlocutory orders such as a denial of summary judgment. Nevertheless, the collateralorder doctrine excepts a narrow range of interlocutory 4 decisions from the general rule. See Cohen v. Beneficial Indust. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S. Ct. 1221 (1949); We, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 174 F.3d 322, 324 (3d Cir. 1999). There is no question that orders denying absolute immunity are reviewable on interlocutory appeal. See e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982); Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500 (1979); Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977). In Mitchell v Forsyth, the Supreme Court extended the doctrine to include denial of claims to qualified immunity, though only to the extent such denial turns on an issue of law rather than fact. 472 U.S. 511, 525 (1985). The Supreme Court has not decided whether denial of summary judgment based on a good-faith defense can ever fall within the collateral-order doctrine. We have not, nor has any other circuit court of appeals, decided the issue. Nevertheless, we find our course amply guided by previous decisions in which we have addressed the collateral-order doctrine. Those decisions clearly indicate that denial of summary judgment based on a good-faith defense does not permit an interlocutory appeal. We have repeatedly expressed our concern that the collateral-order doctrine not swallow thefinal-judgment rule, and have  `consistently construed the [doctrine] narrowly rather than expansively.'  Transtech Indus., Inc. v. A&Z Septic Clean, 5 F.3d 51, 57 (3d Cir. 1993) (quoting Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 747 F.2d 174, 176-77 (3d Cir. 1984) and citing Praxis Properties, Inc. v. Colonial Sav. Bank, s.l.a., 947 F.2d 49, 54 (3d Cir. 1991)); see also We, Inc., 174 F.3d at 324; Demenus v. Tinton 35 Inc., 873 F.2d 50, 53 (3d Cir. 1989); Borden Co. v. Syk, 410 F.2d 843 (3d Cir. 1969)). In deciding whether a challenged order fits within the collateral-order doctrine, we have applied the three-prong analysis established in Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 98 S. Ct. 2454 (1978). See Transtech Indus., 5 F.3d at 56-57. To fall within the doctrine, the order must: (1) conclusively determine the disputed question; (2) resolve an important issue completely separable from the merits of 5 the action; and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Transtech Indus. , 5 F.3d at 55 (citing Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S. at 468, 98 S. Ct. at 2457). Applying those factors in this case, we first conclude that denial of summary judgment based on Kulaylat's good-faith defense does not conclusively determine the disputed question. The District Court has merely concluded that the current record leaves open genuine issues of material fact concerning Kulaylat's state of mind at the time he treated Bines. The court left open the possibility that Kulaylat could renew his motion for summary judgment once the record is more fully developed. In any event, denial of summary judgment does not preclude Kulaylat from asserting, or the fact finder from accepting, his good-faith defense at trial. And, significantly, unlike qualified immunity, a successful good-faith defense merely protects the defendant from liability, not from suit. See Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 165 (1992) (concluding that the entitlement to a good-faith defense would not entitle private parties to the qualified immunity from suit accorded to government officials). Cf. We, Inc., 174 F.3d at 330 (holding that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine provides immunity from liability, not from suit). Second, Kulaylat's good-faith claims are not completely separable from the merits of the underlying action. Unlike the objective test applied to claims of qualified immunity, see Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), good faith turns on the defendant's subjective state of mind. We cannot determine whether Kulaylat acted with deliberate indifference to Bines' serious medical needs without addressing factual questions that the District Court has yet to resolve. Third, Kulaylat's good-faith defense will not be effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment. As already noted, the defense, if accepted, does not make him immune from suit. Thus, requiring him to await final judgment before bringing his appeal would not cause the irretrievable loss of any right to which he is entitled. If the jury returns a verdict against him, Kulaylat may still move the court to 6 grant judgment as a matter of law, or to grant a new trial. If the court declines, he may still appeal the final judgment to this court. Thus, Kulaylat's good-faith claim fails to satisfy any of the collateral-order doctrine's three requirements for interlocutory appeal. We therefore hold that we lack jurisdiction to review denial of that claim in this interlocutory appeal.