Legal Document

546 U.S. 345 (2006) WILL ET AL. v. HALLOCK No. 04-1332. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 28, 2005. Decided January 18, 2006 *347 Douglas Hallward-Driemeier argued the cause for petitioners. With him on brief were Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney Keisler, Deputy Kneedler, and Barbara L. Herwig. Allison M. Zieve respondents. her Brian Wolfman Scott Nelson. JUSTICE SOUTER delivered opinion Court. The authority Courts Appeals to review "all final decisions district courts," 28 U.S.C. § 1291, includes appellate jurisdiction over "a narrow class that do not terminate litigation," but are sufficiently important collateral merits they should "nonetheless be treated as final," Digital Equipment Corp. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 863, 867 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). issue here is whether a refusal apply judgment bar Federal Tort Claims Act open appeal. We hold it not. I complaint alleges Susan Hallock owned computer software business she husband, Richard, operated from home. After information about Richard Hallock's credit card was stolen used pay subscription fee child pornography Web site, agents States Customs Service, investigating traced *348 payment got warrant search Hallocks' residence. authority, seized equipment, software, disk drives. No criminal charges ever brought, Government's actions produced different disaster. When equipment returned, several drives damaged, all stored data (including trade secrets account files) lost, Hallocks forced out business. In July 2002, company brought an action against under Act, invoking waiver sovereign immunity, 1346, alleging negligence by customs in executing search. claim never addressed, District granted motion dismiss, holding agents' activities occurred course detaining goods thus fell within exception Act's 2680(e). States, 253 F. Supp. 2d 361 (NDNY 2003). While suit Government still pending, filed this individual Bivens Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 388 (1971), had damaged computers deprived property including income violation Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment. dismissed first Government, moved action, citing "the [§] 1346(b) title shall constitute complete any claimant, reason same subject matter, employee government whose act or omission gave rise claim." 2676. denied motion, dismissal *349 solely procedural ground, failed raise bar. Bonner, 281 425, 427 Second Circuit affirmed, after finding order doctrine. 387 F.3d 147 (2004). certiorari consider bar, 545 1103 (2005), now vacate want part Appeals. II doctrine, identified with Cohen Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 541 (1949), "best understood `final decision' rule laid down Congress `practical construction' it." Equipment, supra, at (quoting Cohen, 546). Whereas 1291 "gives courts appeals `all decisions' courts" directly appealable us, Behrens Pelletier, 516 299, 305 (1996), doctrine accommodates "small class" rulings, concluding litigation, conclusively resolving "claims right separable from, to, rights asserted action," ibid. claims "too too independent itself require consideration deferred until whole case adjudicated." 546. requirements appeal have been distilled three conditions: "`[1] determine disputed question, [2] resolve completely separate [3] effectively unreviewable judgment.'" Puerto Rico Aqueduct Sewer Authority Metcalf & Eddy, 506 139, 144 (1993) Coopers Lybrand Livesay, 437 463, 468 (1978)). conditions "stringent," *350 868 (citing Midland Asphalt 489 794, 799 (1989)), unless kept so, underlying will overpower substantial finality interests meant further: judicial efficiency, example, "sensible policy `of avoid[ing] obstruction just would come permitting harassment cost succession various rulings which litigation may give rise.'" Firestone Tire Rubber Co. Risjord, 449 368, 374 (1981) Cobbledick 309 323, 325 (1940)). Accordingly, we mentioned applying recently without emphasizing its modest scope. See, e. g., U.S., ("[T]he `narrow' stay way allowed swallow general party entitled single appeal, has entered ..." (citation omitted)). And what said; although asked many times expand collaterally orders, instead selective membership. A Prior cases mark line between those outside. On immediately side orders rejecting absolute Nixon Fitzgerald, 457 731, 742 (1982), qualified Mitchell Forsyth, 472 511, 530 (1985). State benefit decision denying Eleventh Amendment Aqueduct, 144-145, defendant adverse ruling defense double jeopardy, Abney 431 651, 660 (1977). examples admittedly lawyer's temptation generalize. each case, appealing vindicating claiming avoid trial, satisfaction third condition: stand trial *351 appealable, lost. Those seeking immediate therefore naturally argue prevail satisfies condition. But generalization easy sound and, if accepted, leave requirement tatters. faced prospect rescinding settlement agreement. Petitioner "`right trial' requiring protection appeal," analogizing rescission denial immunity. Id., 869. said no, however, lest "every could enforced appropriately pretrial [be] loosely . described conferring `right trial.'" 873. Otherwise, "almost every might called `effectively unreviewable' sense relief error can extend rewriting history." 872. "Allowing vindicate such move aside court lacks personal jurisdiction, statute limitations run, movant his Sixth speedy barred preclusion principles, no material fact dispute moving matter law, merely fails state claim. Such motions made virtually case." 873 (citations B Since only some burdens qualify, then, cannot reviewed "effectively" conventional judgment, combed further characteristic appealability Cohen; explained, something boils value *352 lost through rigorous application requirement." 878-879 Van Cauwenberghe Biard, 486 517, 524 (1988)). See also Lauro Lines s.r.l. Chasser, 490 495, 502 (1989) (SCALIA, J., concurring) ("The importance always significant our doctrine"). Thus, Nixon, stressed "compelling public ends," id., 758, "rooted separation powers," 749, compromised failing allow Presidential 743, 752, n. 32. explaining treatment when immunity Mitchell, spoke threatened disruption governmental functions, fear inhibiting able people exercising discretion service full whenever acted reasonably face law "clearly established." 526. explained adverting need ensure vindication State's dignitary interests. 146. jeopardy given Abney, did implicate free proceedings whatsoever (since prior essential defense), enormous prosecutorial power "to embarrassment, expense ordeal compelling live continuing anxiety," 661-662 omitted); alleviate these consequences superior position particular high marshaled support interest avoiding trial: honoring powers, preserving efficiency initiative officials, respecting interests, mitigating government's *353 advantage individual. That is, mere avoidance imperil interest, counts asking left later. Lybrand, C Does serve weighty objective demanding appeal? One argue, course, goes officials burdened distracted, case: gets treatment, so aftermath success Act. different. Qualified simply save trouble employees; recognized because burden unjustified colorable point clear official took reasonable light was. nub induce show relevant established," Harlow 800, 818 (1982); cf. Saucier Katz, 533 194, 202 (2001); quick resolution essential. There stake applicable. It preservation own sake supports abbreviating troublesome employees enough dismiss *354 federal officer one 42 1983, Ex parte Young, 209 123 (1908). effect, fade early round ended fight. Another difference lies bar's element. timely moment served complaint, raised resolved favor. If alone there possibility nor long pending simultaneously (as time here). present other, possibly invoked trial. closer analogy preclusion, res judicata. Although statutory arguably broader than traditional judicata, functions much way, both rules depending condition precedent[*] neither reflecting scot liability. concern behind one, duplicative "multiple suits identical entitlements obligations parties." 18 C. Wright, A. Miller, *355 E. Cooper, Practice Procedure 4402, p. 9 (2d ed. 2002) giving relitigation thought protect values great them. As indicated usual absent reasons discretionary court, fairly subordinated deferring judgment. greater typical preclusion; true form deciding implied, 2676 cries order. remand instructions lack jurisdiction. ordered. NOTES [*] analogous condition, attached proceeding, Monge California, 721, 728 (1998), distinguishes other immunities above. But, deserves owing prosecutor who chooses go repeatedly

Classification Label: 8