Opinion ID: 820621
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Our jurisdiction depends on the district court’s basis for denying the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment premised on qualified immunity. “A district court’s denial of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable decision under the collateral order doctrine,” but “[w]e have no jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal . . . when a district court’s denial of qualified immunity rests on the basis that genuine issues of material fact exist.”4 Although the district court below found that one factual issue—the Defendants’ subjective awareness that Burton was still in pain after taking the ibuprofen—was genuinely disputed, its “determination that fact issues were presented that precluded summary judgment does not necessarily deny us jurisdiction over the appeal.”5 Instead, we may decide the legal issues by “determin[ing] as a matter of law whether [the Defendants] [are] entitled to qualified immunity after accepting all of [the plaintiff’s] factual assertions as true.”6 Here, the Defendants contend that, even when the disputed facts are viewed in Burton’s favor, they were not deliberately indifferent to Burton’s serious medical needs and as such they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. We may exercise appellate jurisdiction to resolve that issue.