Opinion ID: 6112850
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Ordinarily, we do not have jurisdiction to review a denial of a summary judgment motion because such a decision is not final within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2006). However, a district court’s denial of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, to the extent that it turns on a matter of law. Trent v. Wade, 776 F.3d 368, 376 (5th Cir. 2015). “When a district court denies an official’s motion for summary judgment predicated upon qualified immunity, the district court can be thought of as making two distinct determinations, even if only implicitly.” Heaney v. Roberts, 846 F.3d 795, 800 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). These determinations are: (1) a certain course of conduct would, as a matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law; and (2) a genuine issue of fact exists regarding whether the defendant did, in fact, engage in such conduct. emerged from common law principles and are well established in the law.” Metro-GoldwynMayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 930 (2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 5 Case: 20-20530 Document: 00516180318 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/26/2022 No. 20-20530 Id. We lack jurisdiction to review the second type on interlocutory appeal. Id. In other words, “we cannot challenge the district court’s assessments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence—that is, the question whether there is enough evidence in the record for a jury to conclude that certain facts are true.” Trent, 776 F.3d at 376 (quoting Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337, 347 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc)). Although we lack jurisdiction to resolve “the genuineness of any factual disputes,” we do have jurisdiction to determine “whether the factual disputes are material.” Kovacic v. Villarreal, 628 F.3d 209, 211 n.1 (5th Cir. 2015). “So, we review the complaint and record to determine whether, assuming that all of [the plaintiff’s] factual assertions are true, those facts are materially sufficient to establish that defendants acted in an objectively unreasonable manner. Even where . . . the district court has determined that there are genuine disputes raised by the evidence, we assume plaintiff’s version of the facts is true, then determine whether those facts suffice for a claim . . . under these circumstances.” Wagner v. Bay City, 227 F.3d 316, 320 (5th Cir. 2000). We give de novo review to the legal issues relating to qualified immunity. King v. Handorf, 821 F.3d 650, 653 (5th Cir. 2016).