Document: 516 U.S. 299116 S.Ct. 834133 L.Ed.2d 773 John W. BEHRENS, Petitioner,v.Robert J. PELLETIER. No. 94-1244. Supreme Court of the United States Argued November 7, 1995. Decided February 21, 1996. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus * Respondent was fired as provisional managing officer Pioneer Savings and Loan Association after petitioner, federal official responsible for monitoring Pioneer's operations, recommended such action because respondent under investigation potential misconduct relating to collapse another financial institution. filed this suit, seeking, inter alia, damages alleged constitutional wrongs Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 388, 91 1999, 29 619. In partially denying petitioner's motion dismiss claims, District rejected asserted defense qualified immunity from suit. On appeal, Ninth Circuit held that denial is an immediately appealable "final" decision 28 U.S.C. § 1291 Cohen Beneficial Industrial Corp., 337 541, 69 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528, but also stated, in dictum, claiming entitled only one pretrial appeal. Ultimately, court affirmed Court's rejection qualified-immunity defense, based on allegations made respondent's complaint. remand further proceedings, denied summary judgment, which again claimed immunity. Petitioner's appeal denial, his second a summarily dismissed by "for lack jurisdiction." Held: A defendant's immediate unfavorable ruling does not deprive appeals jurisdiction over immunity, following judgment. Pp. __-__. (a) The Circuit's one-interlocutory-appeal rule rejected. Mitchell Forsyth, 472 511, 530, 105 2806, 2817, 86 411, district court's "final decision" within meaning 1291. plainly contemplated government could raise at both motion-to-dismiss summary-judgment stage, see id., 526, S.Ct., 2815, clearly establishes order rejecting either stage judgment subject An unsuccessful cannot possibly render later any less than it would be absent prior decision. It follows seeks review its dismissal Appeals improper. proposition no more judiciously timed should necessary safeguard right unsound, factors determinative question will different where looks uncontested evidence, earlier dis miss, merely (b) Respondent's additional arguments why proper—(1) said since, even if were reversed, petitioner nonetheless required endure discovery trial other matters, (2) that, Johnson Jones, 515 ----, 115 2151, 132 238, rests determination genuine dispute exists material issues fact—are Reversed remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, JJ., joined. BREYER, dissenting opinion, STEVENS, Leonard G. Weiss, petitioner. Cornelia T. Pillard, Washington, DC, U.S., amicus curiae special leave Court. Samuel Tasker Rees, Los Angeles, CA, respondent. Justice SCALIA 1 411 (1985), we general appellate statute, (1994 ed.). presented case whether deprives 2 1983, South Coast Association, new institution, applied Federal Home Bank Board (FHLBB or Board) approval obtain account insurance Insurance Corporation (FSLIC).1 Under FHLBB regulations, institutions withheld their "financial policies management" found "unsafe" various reasons, including "character management." 12 CFR 571.6(b) (1986). Accordingly, when approved FSLIC March 1984, imposed number requirements, condition "provide employment full-time executive officer, Principal Supervisory Agent"—FHLBB's term president regional operating oversight capacity behalf FHLBB. Resolution 84-164, ¶ 10(p) (Mar. 29, 1984). Board's resolution period three years, change Coast's chief management position Ibid. 3 Shortly obtaining FHLBB's conditional approval, succeeded interest named Pelletier consent, sought mid-May 1985. Only few weeks earlier, however, April 23, 1985, had declared insolvent Beverly Hills time senior position. inquiry pointed high-level failed ultimately became lawsuit against several officers, 4 suit yet been consent hire respondent; FSLIC's pending into Hills' caused Behrens, "Supervisory Agent" then monitor ing write May 8, 1986, withholding advising replaced. receipt letter asked resign and, he refused, him. 5 Three years later, 1989, brought court, naming defendant complaint included claims two wrongs. See 619 (1971). charged, first, writing effectively discharged him post Pioneer, fashion without notice opportunity heard, violated procedural due process. Second, deprived substantive process interference with "clearly established Constitutionally protected property liberty rights . specific pursue profession free undue governmental interference." First Amended Complaint 38, reprinted App. 16. letter, along other, continuing efforts harm reputation, cost livelihood savings loan industry. contained claims—against San Francisco (petitioner's employer), FHLBB, States; none these relevant present 6 Petitioner or, alternative, With regard statute-of-limitations ground actions, taken capacity, "d[id] violate statutory rights." Harlow Fitzgerald, 457 800, 818, 102 2727, 2738, 73 396 (1982). ruled favor therefore procedural-due-process claim, substantive-due-process claim extent related loss Pioneer. "to [it was] subsequent acts defendan[t] preventing prevent [respondent] securing employment." Francisco, CV 89-969 (CD Cal., Oct. 5, 1989), 27-28. motion, prejudice, premature given discovery. 7 appealed implicit regarding remaining claim. entertained notwithstanding interlocutory nature, holding "a 'final' test set forth Indust. 1528 (1949) ., regardless takes form refusal grant judgment." 968 F.2d 865, 870 (C.A.9 1992). "take advantage opportunities afforded bringing repeated appeals," "[o]ne all entertain." Id., 870-871. merits argument enjoyed right." ly (subject, was, regulatory approval) properly before since specifically discharge time-barred. 871-872. (The noted 869, n. 6, unduly short limitations period.) respect deprivation post-Pioneer employment, "nebulous theories conspiracy" out complaint—although "insufficient survive judgment"—made proper F.2d, 872-873. 8 Upon remand, reversed light Appeals' reinstated After discovery, moved grounds, contending actions established" elsewhere. unadorned statement "[m]aterial fact remain Behrens claim." 89-0969 Sept. 1994), Pet. Cert. 5a. which, certified frivolous. unpublished order, 94-56507 (CA9 Nov. 17, 1a. We granted certiorari, 514 --- ---- (1995). II 9 Section Title 28, U.S.C., gives courts "all final decisions" courts, except those requirement finality precludes consideration decisions are revision, "fully consummated [that] steps towards they merge." Cohen, supra, 546, 1225. not, bar prejudgment orders. described "small class" though "finally determine separable from, collateral to, action, too important independent cause itself require deferred until whole adjudicated." Puerto Rico Aqueduct Sewer Authority Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 139, 142-145, 113 684, 687-688, 121 605 (1993) (citing Coopers Lybrand Livesay, 437 463, 468, 98 2454, 2458, 57 351 (1978)). issue orders officers' assertions come category decisions. 10 As (1982), "shield[s] [government agents] liability civil insofar conduct reasonable person have known," 2738 Procunier Navarette, 434 555, 565, 855, 861, 55 24 adopted criterion "objective legal reasonableness," rather good faith, precisely "permit defeat insubstantial resort trial." 819, 813, 2739, 2735-2736. Unsurprisingly, then, "an entitlement stand face burdens litigation, conditioned resolutio n essentially [immunity] question." 2815. And, district-court entitlements distinct merits, see, e.g., Aqueduct, 145-146, 688-689, (Eleventh Amendment immunity); Abney States, 431 651, 662, 97 2034, 2041-2042, 52 651 (1977) (right subjected double jeopardy), turns law, 'final decision' absence Mitchell, 2817. - 2155-2156, 238 11 While did say once,2 successive stages: "Unless plaintiff's state violation pleading commencement Even adequately alleges commission fails uncover evidence sufficient create committed acts." 2815 (citation omitted). 13 Thus, Since "final," falls 14 Indeed, easier argue judgment—the here —is That reasoning absolute-immunity grounds stated unsuccessful, seek grounds: "Since has determined [the defendant] trial, order." Kaiter Boxford, 836 704, 707 (C.A.1 1988). problem approach, logically there possibility presenting judgment; trial. avoid difficulty saying waiving denial. 708. But quite obviously, eliminating ability eliminate vindicate supposed reason declaring first nonfinal. 15 source confusion mistaken conception scope protection make clear meant give officials right, "standing trial," "such matters '[i]nquiries kind can peculiarly disruptive effective government.' " (emphasis added) (quoting Harlow, 817, 2738). Whether granted, conclusive right. thought statements settled point, questioned 844, enough support If consequence be, case, BREYER proposes, rather, conclusion foreclosed unmistakably envisioned "[t]he immunity." 527, 2816. 16 decisions, rested "one-appeal" pronouncement upon resolving "should appeal." Pelletier, 871. explain how pertains finality, suppose argued needless superfluous "too review," our jurisprudence requires, 1225-1226. event, sound. may illustrated history case. Because initially time-barred, refused decide (and thus evidently regarded open question) who holds job assert constitutionally cognizable expectation continued employment. operation one-appeal rule, never addressed court. 17 assuredly unusual circumstances, proceeding normal "require appeal," legally bearing dismiss. At scrutinized reasonableness." plaintiff longer rest pleadings, Rule Civ. Proc. 56, (in most favorable plaintiff) conducting inquiry. true unsuccessfully need judgment.3 18 expressed concern tend illegitimate purpose delaying proceedings. Undeniably, availability affords abuse, believe abuse often occurred. To contrary, seem rare occurrence.4 Moreover, occur, observed analogous context jeopardy, "it well supervisory powers establish procedures calendars weed frivolous claims." Abney, 2042, 8. example, appropriately "frivolous" (unfortunately erroneous) precedent. This practice, embraced Circuits, enables retain disposition thereby minimizes disruption ongoing See, Chuman Wright, 960 104, 1992); Yates Cleveland, 941 444, 448-449 (C.A.6 1991); Stewart Donges, 915 572, 576-577 (C.A.10 1990); Apostol Gallion, 1335, 1339 (C.A.7 1989). us here—whether opposed frivolous—must focusing strength reversing order. "Appeal depend facts particular case." Carroll 354 394, 405, 77 1332, 1339, 1442 (1957). Digital Equipment Corp. Desktop Direct, 511 114 1992, 1996, 128 842 (1994). said, "issue law," appealable. III 19 Our dispose proposes reasons available. First, argues available where, separate asserted. reach "conclusively determin[e] 2816, Cohen. 20 far posture benefit argues; address merits. Courts almost unanimously it,5 so do we. certain litigation general; finally denied, must available, mere addition Making appealability factor, hand, principle discussed above, determinations classes individual cases. Apart objections principle, practical effect proposal intolerable. rules erroneously, proceedings eliminated, long (with back up) right; injunctive relief (for alleged). 21 asserts remain." This, contends, renders unappealable last Term's 2156-2157. misreading Every controverted fact, surely mean every nonappealable. held, simply, evidentiary sufficiency happen arise case; what nothing finding occurred, decided truly "separable" hence Mitchell. reaffirmed resolve concerning "abstract issu[e] law" 2158—typically, allegedly infringed established," 530-535, 2817-28 20; Davis Scherer, 468 183, 190-193, 104 3012, 3017-3019, 82 139 (1984). 22 Here necessarily attributed (which controverted) constituted law. permits deemed sufficiently supported purposes met standard apparent impediment being raised And while identify charged supported, recognizes circumstances undertake cumbersome record nonmoving party, likely assumed." Johnson, 2159. task now facing 23 remanded consistent opinion. ordered. 25 whom STEVENS joins, dissenting. 26 I agree asserting entitled, matter course, Rather, my view, law normally single denials motions "collateral order" doctrine's basic rationale, precedents, considerations lead conclusion. 27 rationale permitting exception, rule. Congress, exceptions directly here, authorized way, "Congress forbidding piecemeal controversy, enfeebling judicial administration [and] obstruction just harassment succession rulings rise, initiation entry Cobbledick 309 323, 325, 60 540, 84 783 (1940). Judges created is, effect, nonstatutory authorizing appeals, satisfies 545-547, 1225-1226, (1949). "collateral" "final"), meets requirements. (1) [a] disputed question," "resolve completely action," (3) "be unreviewable (1978). 30 These requirements exception. "effective unreviewability" means failure litigant permanent harm. "conclusive determination" needed "separability" force consider same (or similar) questions once. 2155. Taken together, cases, ibid.; Midland Asphalt 489 794, 799, 109 1494, 1498, 103 879 (1989); Gulfstream Aerospace Mayacamas 485 271, 276, 108 1133, 1136-1137, 99 296 (1988), help pick class error-correcting benefits outweigh costs, delays, diminished coherence, waste potentially associated multiple appeals. 2154-2155; R. Posner, Economic Analysis Law 585-587 (4th ed.1992). 31 concluded sending terms immunity-doctrine's trial-avoiding purpose) amount 526-527, 2815-2816. Post-trial late (where purely legal, 2156-2158), prove "separate" significant duplication effort. 527-529, 2816-2817; 545-550, 2825-2826 (Brennan, dissenting). Hence, 32 complaint, post-appeal, Consider requirement. Both satisfy literal "separate," equal measure, ante, __, 3. But, reasoned principles underlying served other. involve similar issues, panels, risking very resources intended avoid. 15A C. A. Miller, E. Cooper, Practice Procedure 3911, pp. 333-334 (2d ed.1992) (hereinafter Wright Miller). 33 Similarly, law's promise litigant's much pressing. of, found. harm, shall next discuss, considers justify 34 precedents more, ordinary When "that small [immediate] review." 1226 added). today, reiterated qualify one. __; 1994, (1994) (Cohen "simply answered about value interests lost through rigorous application requirement"); Lybrand, 2457-2458 (disputed issue"); Richardson-Merrell Inc. Koller, 424, 436, 2757, 2763-2764, 340 (1985); Lauro Lines s.r.l. Chasser, 490 495, 502, 1976, 1980, 548 (1989) (SCALIA, concurring) ("The importance always part doctrine"). protect standing take avoiding question, out, anti-discovery "sufficiently overcome militating appeals." Lines, 503, 1980 precedent indicates not. 35 For thing, considering kinds warrant identified important" considerably Stack Boyle, 342 1, 72 96 (1951) (interest imprisonment; Excessive Bail Clause, Const., Amdt. 8); trial; Double Jeopardy 5); Helstoski Meanor, 442 500, 2445, 61 (1979) Speech Debate Art. I, 6); Eleventh 11). 36 trouble, expense, possible embarrassment unnecessary (interests like interest) 2000 (no refusing enforce settlement agreement); 499, 1978-1979 forum selection clause); Van Cauwenberghe Biard, 486 517, 524, 1945, 1950-1951, 100 517 (1988) non conveniens). 37 Further, litigants able routinely vindicate, 15B Miller 3914.23, 123-130, Constitution provides Maness Meyers, 419 449, 458-461, 95 584, 590-593, 42 574 (1975) quash subpoena materials arguably subpoenaed party's Fifth privilege self-incrimination). Although sometimes adverse ruling, so, typically disobey resulting citation contempt Church Scientology Cal. 9, 18, 11, 447, 452, 313 (1992); Maness, 460-461, 592; Ryan, 402 532-533, 1580, 1581-1582, 85 (1971); 326-330, 541-544, 15B, W 140-155. Nixon, 418 683, 691, 94 3090, 3099, 41 1039 (1974) (allowing President Nixon incurring citation, "traditional avenue appeal" "peculiarly inappropriate"). "disobedience contempt" (somewhat limitation here) works, part, "encourages reconsideration party resisting seeking tends limit reasonably reversal." p. 154; Pennsylvania Ritchie, 480 39, 50, 107 989, 997, 40 (1987) (disobedience procedure "rests assumption unless willing risk contempt, significance insufficient interrupting proceedings"). 38 seems highly anomalous deny routine protects interest, permit doctrine interest. Yet, today's anomaly, likely, generate many lower apply wherever Constitution, doctrine, offers protection. 39 majority suggests already "settled" cases modern formulation, meant, public 'broad-ranging discovery' 'peculiarly Anderson Creighton, 483 635, 646, 3034, 3042, 523 2737-2738). (that appealable) concerned primarily preserving defendants' 525, ("At heart trial"); Cauwenberghe, 1950 critical 'the essence' trial"). suggested, "settled," interest—independent trial—is safeguarded review. Finally, members have, recent cautioned expanding eligible 1996 (SOUTER, J.) ("the 'narrow' exception stay way allowed swallow rule"); 292, 1145 ("[the Court's] sorely limiting principles, originally announced 'small [of decisions] review' "); 440, 2766 (O'CONNOR, ("[W]e decline 'transform limited carved license broad disregard Congress 1291' ") Firestone Tire Rubber Co. Risjord, 449 368, 378, 101 669, 675-676, 66 571 (1981)). Caution especially appropriate two. Several finds post-discovery asks conceptually posed pre-discovery two? Would stages, continuously up facts, close burden entire Still, Story called "very great oppressive expenses," Canter American Ins. Co., 307, 318, 688 (1830), "ossify litigation," Abel 904 1990) (Easterbrook, J.). spent four (of seven complaint's filing) fighting, might won quickly easily Cf. 872-873 1992) (expressing doubt motion). concede added serve underlie some extent, each terminate meritless litigation. ever-diminishing degree posing ever-increasing threat appearance even-handed justice 476, 2462 certification, "operat[e] plaintiffs"). 43 mentioned majority's threatens simply immunity-type rule) 731, 2690, 349 (1982) (absolute (double jeopardy guarantee prosecutions). busy numbers similar, repetitive, overloaded dockets threaten system. Remarks Chief William H. Rehnquist, Tenth Annual Judicial Conference Circuit, 146 F.R.D. 256, 257 (Apr. 30, ("One needs generation deal current crisis Appeals. Few existence crisis, born spiraling filings increased tendency decisions"); Long Range Plan (Dec. 1995) ("[I]f conditions seriously deteriorate appeal"). generally Baker, Rationing Appeal: Problems 31-51 44 matter, predominate still 1292(b) (permitting nonfinal controlling controversial "may materially advance ultimate termination litigation"). frequently counsels Swint Chambers County Comm'n, 1203, 1209-1210, 131 (1995); 2004; 529-530, 1953-1954; 435, 2763; 13, 676, 13; 474-475, 27, 2461, 27; Parkinson Industries, 520 650, 658-660 (C.A.2 1975) (Friendly, concurring). reluctant categories orders" has, adding 2072(c) Rules Enabling Act, "designat[ed] rulemaking define refine appealable." Swint, 1210. IV 45 sum, purpose, practicality per more. hold interests, "waived" 708 1988); nor, "importance," conclusiveness, timing affects "finality" __. free, present, wait, move motion's both—either insufficiently remains 46 result because, precedent, (an protect) technical labels More importantly, depends understanding purpose. Law's words, however sound, magic formulas; read purposes, arbitrary applications harmful results. forth, permit—it requires —a dissent. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499. scheme exist, having eliminated Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, Enforcement Act Stat. 183. Interestingly, dealt claims. 515-519, 2809-2812. Neither nor assigned aspect Cohen's post, compo nent resolved "conceptually (1985). comparison, between reviewed itself—not previous suggests. again, states "appealable decision.' aware five reported cases—Mitchell itself, Nelson Silverman, 999 417 1993), 394 1990), Francis Coughlin, 891 case—in twice Abel, ("Paucity [on appeals] reflect forbearance opportunity"); 706 1988) ("[I]n permitted proceeding"). McLaurin Morton, 48 F.3d 944, 949 1995); Green Brantley, 1146, 1148-1151 (C.A.11 1991) (en banc); Di Martini Ferrin, 889 922, 924-925 cert. 501 1204, 111 2796, 970 (1991); Young Lynch, 846 960, 961-963 (C.A.4 DeVargas Mason Hanger-Silas 844 714, 717-718 Musso Hourigan, 736, 742, Scott Lacy, 811 1153, 1153-1154 (CA7), 484 965, 455, 395 (1987); de Abadia Izquierdo Mora, 792 1187, 1188-1190 1986); Tubbesing Arnold, 742 401, 403-404 (C.A.8 Third otherwise. Prisco Dept. Justice, 851 93, 95-96, 1089, 2428, 985 (1989).

Category: 8