Opinion ID: 803602
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Generally, the denial of a motion for summary judgment is not a final order subject to immediate appeal. Gray ex rel. Alexander v. Bostic, 458 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir. 2006). Qualified immunity is “an entitlement not to stand trial . . . when a government actor’s discretionary conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Koch v. Rugg, 221 F.3d 1283, 1294 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation and quotation marks omitted). A denial of qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment is immediately appealable when it “concerns solely the pure legal decision of (1) whether the implicated federal constitutional right was clearly established and (2) whether the alleged acts violated that law.” Koch, 221 F.3d at 1294 (emphasis omitted) (citing Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313, 115 S. Ct. 2151, 2156 (1995)). The appeal must present “a legal question concerning a clearly established federal right that can be decided apart from considering sufficiency of the evidence.” Id. Here, Dodd contends that it is not clearly established constitutional law that, absent exigent circumstances, an officer must obtain a search warrant from a neutral and detached judicial officer to search a home. Therefore, we have 6 jurisdiction to hear Dodd’s appeal. However, Everett only contends that he did not personally participate in Dodd’s alleged unconstitutional conduct because Everett did not know that Dodd improperly changed the search warrant. This argument requires us to consider the sufficiency of the evidence only, and not whether Everett violated a clearly established federal right. Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to hear Everett’s appeal.4