Opinion ID: 76972
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of Review/Jurisdiction

Text: 2 We apply a two-step analysis to determine when an official acting within his discretionary authority 3 is eligible for qualified immunity. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). First, we ask whether the facts [t]aken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, ... show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right[.] Id. Second, if a constitutional right was violated under the plaintiff's version of the facts, we must then determine whether the right was clearly established. Id. In this interlocutory appeal, the defendants challenge both the district court's factual findings as to whether the plaintiff put forth sufficient evidence of an underlying constitutional violation and the district court's legal conclusion that the law was clearly established. This forces us to briefly address our jurisdiction over these matters. 3 Because a denial of summary judgment is not an appealable final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, it is not ordinarily subject to immediate review. However, [a] district court's order denying a defense of qualified immunity is an appealable final decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to the extent that it turns on a question of law. McMillian v. Johnson, 88 F.3d 1554, 1562 (11th Cir.1996); see also Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). When an interlocutory appeal raises both sufficiency of the evidence and clearly established law issues, as this appeal does, we have jurisdiction to entertain both issues. 4 Stanley v. City of Dalton, Ga., 219 F.3d 1280, 1286 (11th Cir.2000); Vista Community Servs. v. Dean, 107 F.3d 840, 843-44 (11th Cir.1997). 4 Although we may do so, we often decline to address the sufficiency of the evidence issue. In reviewing the district court's denial of summary judgment, we—in most qualified-immunity interlocutory appeals—accept the facts which the district court assumed for purposes of its decision about whether the law was clearly established. Cooper v. Smith, 89 F.3d 761, 762 (11th Cir.1996). Here, the district court made detailed factual findings, and we choose to accept those facts. 5 Using those facts, we therefore address only the pure legal question of whether the defendants violated clearly established law. 6