Opinion ID: 172792
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Because this is an interlocutory appeal from a denial of summary judgment, our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 is limited. In general, the denial of a summary judgment motion is not an appealable final order under § 1291. McFall v. Bednar, 407 F.3d 1081, 1086 (10th Cir. 2005). Such a denial is subject to appeal, however, when the defendants are public officials asserting a qualified immunity defense and the appealed issue is whether a given set of facts establishes that defendants violated clearly established law. Bass v. Richards, 308 F.3d 1081, 1086 (10th Cir.2002); see Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 311, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985)). This limitation means that we may consider Rector's appeal only insofar as it presents neat abstract issues of law; Rector may not appeal [the] district court's summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a `genuine' issue of fact for trial. Johnson, 515 U.S. at 317, 319-20, 115 S.Ct. 2151 (quotation omitted). Thus, it is not our province to determine whether the record supports the district court's factual assumptions; instead, we `simply take, as given, the facts that the district court assumed when it denied summary judgment for [a] (purely legal) reason.' Dixon v. Kirkpatrick, 553 F.3d 1294, 1301 (10th Cir.2009) (quoting Johnson, 515 U.S. at 319, 115 S.Ct. 2151).