Opinion ID: 3151680
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Supervisory Conduct

Text: Lieutenant Conner was the ranking officer on the scene. After Mr. Ashley was handcuffed, he summoned medical assistance and directed other officers in the performance of their duties. The district court allowed a claim against him in his supervisory capacity to proceed because “[d]espite being a supervisory officer and recognizing that Mr. Ashley was experiencing excited delirium, Officer Conner testified that he did not intervene when the other officers continued to hold Mr. Ashley on his stomach for between two and five minutes after being handcuffed.” Aplt. App., Vol. IV at 545; see Booker, 745 F.3d at 421 (“[W]e have . . . denied qualified immunity when an officer failed to prevent others from using excessive force even though the officer himself did not engage in excessive force.”). Lieutenant Conner’s argument regarding his supervisory conduct essentially challenges the district court’s factual findings. Particularly, he argues that there is no showing that he failed to intervene in the use of excessive force by any other officer. But the district court concluded otherwise. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider the denial of qualified immunity for Lieutenant Conner’s post-handcuffing 18 supervisory conduct. See Fancher, 723 F.3d at 1199-1200. We dismiss this portion of Lieutenant Conner’s appeal.