Opinion ID: 2817283
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The denial of qualified or absolute immunity, “to the extent that it turns on an issue of law,” is a “final decision” that may be immediately appealed as a collateral order. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985); see also Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 350 (5th Cir. 1999). That denial is appealable “whether the ruling occurs at the pleadings stage or at summary judgment.” Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 528 (5th Cir. 2004). The Supreme Court has held that appeals courts, in reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the basis of qualified immunity, have “jurisdiction to pass on the sufficiency of [the] pleadings,” which is an “issue of law” that “is both inextricably intertwined with, and directly implicated by, the qualified immunity defense.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 672–73 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Given that “[t]he standard for dismissal under Rule 12(c) is the same as that for dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6),” Johnson, 385 F.3d at 529, courts reviewing denials of Rule 12(c) motions on immunity grounds also have jurisdiction, under Iqbal, to review the sufficiency of the pleadings. The Defendants also appeal the denial of their claim that the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (“MTCA”) and state common law immunize them from suit for violations of state law. Our court has held that “an order denying qualified immunity under state law is immediately appealable as a ‘final decision,’ provided that ‘the state’s doctrine of qualified immunity, like the federal doctrine, provides a true immunity from suit and not a simple defense to liability.’” Cantu v. Rocha, 77 F.3d 795, 803 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Sorey v. 6 Case: 14-60242 Document: 00513116367 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/15/2015 No. 14-60242 Kellett, 849 F.2d 960, 962 (5th Cir. 1988)). “[T]he MTCA contemplates immunity from both liability and judicial proceedings.” Hinds Cnty. v. Perkins, 64 So. 3d 982, 986 (Miss. 2011) (emphasis added); see also Lampton v. Diaz, 661 F.3d 897, 899 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (“The denial of immunity under Mississippi law, like a denial under federal law, is appealable under the collateral order doctrine.”). We may therefore review, as a final decision, the district court’s denial of immunity to the Defendants with respect to Bosarge’s state law claims.