Legal Document

520 U.S. 911117 S.Ct. 1800138 L.Ed.2d 108 Marian JOHNSON, et al., Petitioners,v.Kristine L. FANKELL. No. 96-292. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Feb. 26, 1997. Decided June 9, Syllabus * Respondent filed this 42 U.S.C. §1983 damages action in Idaho state court, alleging that termination her employment by petitioner officials deprived property without due process violation Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court denied petitioners' motion to dismiss, which asserted they were entitled qualified immunity. dismissed their appeal from ruling, explaining denial was neither an appealable final order under Appellate Rule 11(a)(1) nor as a matter federal right §1983. Held: Defendants state-court do not have interlocutory Pp. ____-____. (a) State performing discretionary functions "qualified immunity'' defense that, appropriate circumstances, shields them both liability for and burdens trial. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 800, 818, 102 2727, 2738, 73 396. A district rejecting such on ground defendant's actions-if proven-would violated clearly established law may be appealed immediately "final decision'' general appellate jurisdiction statute, 28 §1291. Mitchell Forsyth, 472 511, 524-530, 105 2806, 2814-2818, 86 411. Relying respondent's statutory claim own defense, petitioners submit courts must protect avoid allowing same would available court. P. 1803. (b) This rejects argument when construe 11(a)(1), accept definition cases brought Even if §1291 contained identical language-and not-the Court's interpretation binding courts, no authority place different construction upon it. See, e.g., New York Ferber, 458 747, 767, 3348, 3359-3360, 1113. could voluntarily placed §1291, but cannot command choice. (c) Also unpersuasive is contention pre-empted extent it does allow appeal. Petitioner's arguments are strong enough overcome two considerable hurdles. First, normal presumption against pre-emption buttressed here fact dismissal rested squarely neutral rule administering courts. Howlett Rose, 496 356, 372, 110 2430, 2440-2441, 332. Second, because immunity defense's ultimate purpose its overenforcement rights, 11(a)(1)'s application context less interference with interests, claim, than judgment about how best balance competing interests. In arguing necessary "outcomes'' litigation based solely whether or misplace reliance Felder Casey, 487 131, 138, 2302, 2306-2307, 101 123. " [O]utcom[e],'' used there, referred disposition case, whereas postponement until after will affect outcome case meritorious. Their adequately prevail question advance also fails, given precise source scope at issue. contrast merits, presumably has fully protected Idaho, immediate review ruling §1983, see Johnson Jones, 515 304, 317, 115 2151, 132 238, procedural simply apply nonfederal forum. Affirmed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Michael S. Gilmore, Boise, ID, petitioners. W. B. Latta, Jr., respondent. Justice STEVENS 1 presented defendants Rev. Stat.1979, We hold not. 2 Petitioners Liquor Dispensary. Respondent, former liquor store clerk, District County Bonner, Idaho. She alleged Amendment Federal Constitution terminated employment. moved dismiss complaint They contended time dismissal, reasonably believed she probationary employee who had interest job. Accordingly, argued, did violate law. motion,1 timely notice 3 entered dismissing explained denying summary "for reason Judgment.'' App. 67. It rejected Behrens Pelletier, 516 ----, 116 834, 133 773 (1996). sought rehearing, again within meaning Rule, and, alternative, rehearing 4 then petition seeking either writ certiorari mandamus. pointed out some unlike Court, appeals orders theory substantial right, McLin Trimble, 795 P.2d 1035, 1037-1038 (Okla.1990); Lakewood Brace, 919 231, 238-240 (Colo.1996). granted resolve conflict, 519 117 136 249 (1996), now affirm. II 5 recognized sued implied cause Bivens Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 388, 91 1999, 29 619 (1971), situations, "officials functions, generally shielded civil insofar conduct constitutional rights reasonable person known.'' 396 (1982). 6 valuable asserting reasons. found applicable any stage proceedings, determines shielding official liability. fails allege discovery uncover evidence sufficient create genuine issue defendant committed violation, provides well liability.2 Indeed, one adopting objective test announced "permit resolution many insubstantial claims judgment.'' Ibid. 7 Consistent purpose, we held 411 (1985), §1291.3 If been therefore, take court's judgment. 8 facts respondent provided law, support submission arguments: rules judgments, finality §1983; second, those authorize appeal, find persuasive. III 9 can easily dispense first follow decision.'' statutes not4 -the statute Neither other tribunal rendered highest state. 1113 (1982); Exxon Corp. Department Revenue Wis., 447 207, 226, n. 100 2109, 2121, 65 66 (1980); Commissioner Bosch's Estate, 387 456, 465, 87 1776, 1782-1783, 18 886 (1967). proposition, fundamental our system federalism, substantive rules. See Wardius Oregon, 412 470, 477, 93 2208, 2213, 37 82 (1973). 10 term adopted "collateral order'' doctrine Cohen Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 541, 69 1221, L.Ed. 1528 (1949). all following it, construing language §1291.5 While similar exception jurisdictional statutes,6 never suggested compelled so. number employ collateral doctrines reject limitations §1291.7 could, course, But choice make, command. IV 11 contend heavily 123 (1988), assert "different outcomes court,'' id., S.Ct., 2307. argue procedure "impermissibly burden[s]'' suit trial.8 12 For reasons, heavy burden persuasion making argument. regarding administration courts.9 As 332 (1990): 13 "When refuses act utmost caution before deciding obligated entertain claim. Missouri ex rel. Southern R. Co. Mayfield, 340 [71 1, 95 3] (1950); Georgia Rail Road & Banking Musgrove, 335 900 [69 407, 435] (1949) (per curiam); Herb Pitcairn, 324 117, 459, 89 789 (1945); Douglas York, N.H. H.R. Co., 279 377, 49 355 [73 747] (1929). requirement competent treat land necessarily include hear presented. rule, "bottomed deeply belief importance control judicial procedure, takes finds them.' Hart, [The Relations Between Law], 54 Colum. L.Rev. [489, 508 (1954)]; Southland Keating, 465 33 [104 852, 869-870, 79 1] (1984) (O'Connor, dissenting); FERC Mississippi, 456 [742, 774, 2126, 2145, 72 532 (1982)] (opinion Powell, J.) thus great latitude establish structure courts.'' 14 second barrier arises nature Petitioners' bottomed interfering rights. true (§1983), State's interests limiting providing merits defense.10 15 these Contrary assertions, Idaho's decision provide vast majority orders-including denials cases-is "outcome determinative'' sense Wisconsin's notice-of-claim applied defeat Felder, U.S., 153, 2314. failure comply Wisconsin resulted dismissed-at least determination claim-if One primary grounds "frequently predictably produce outcomes'' depending inconsistent uniformity. Id., 2306-2307.11 16 misplaced "outcome,'' case. meritorious, there suggestion result what produce. able just And reviewable enters judgment, further chance urge Consequently, 17 evaluating contention, important focus latter however, forum.12 locus rather itself, demonstrated holding 238 (1995). government claimed entitlement record showed material actually engaged constituted clear 307-308, 2154-2155. concluded circumstance Mitchell, 528, 2816-2817, subject set although circumstance, allowed former. 19 so holding, acknowledged "whether amounts pre-existing "clearly established' "genuine' issues trial, still forces public trial.'' 2158. "countervailing considerations'' surrounding outweigh officials' avoiding litigation. 20 even stronger Johnson. When issue, respect "principles [that] federalism share responsibility enforcement law.'' Howlett, 372-373, 2441. apex confront requires undertake something restructuring operation courts.13 therefore agree §1983's recognition pre-empts consistent rules, deny context. 21 affirmed. 22 ordered. syllabus constitutes part prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 200 321, 337, 26 282, 287, 50 499. Because affidavits motion, treated Of pleadings early pre-trial stage, protection "the broad-ranging discovery,'' involved official, construed actions Final operative [j]udgments, decrees final'' 11(a)(1). Thus, explained: "In absolute doctrine, Abney States, [431 651, 97 2034, 52 651 (1977)]; Helstoski Meanor, 442 500, 99 2445, 61 30 (1979); Nixon 731, 2690, 349 (1982), separate underlying purposes though reviewing consider plaintiff's factual allegations resolving immunity, turns decision' notwithstanding absence 528-530, 2816-2817 (footnote omitted). Richardson Chevrefils, 131 227, 552 A.2d 89, 92 (1988) ("Although rulings . normally interlocutory, [w]e followed accepting defendants' judgment''); Murray White, 155 Vt. 621, 626, 587 975, 977-978 (1991) ("In [Mitchell], met [collateral order] requirements, determination''); Park Cooney, 845 346, (Wyo.1992) ("We believe decisions reasons detailed better reasoned; court''). Goldston American Motors 326 N.C. 723, 727, 392 S.E.2d 735, 737 (1990) (disqualification counsel Richardson-Merrell, Inc. Koller, 424, 2757, (1985)); Hanson Signal 451 Pa.Super. 260, 264-265, 679 785, 787-788 (1996) (same class certification Coopers Lybrand Livesay, 437 463, 98 2454, 57 351 (1978)). Brief 22. Unlike 140-145, 2307-2310, target State. 380-381, 2445-2446, (1990). Instead, permits only final,'' regard identity party suit. certain limited circumstances denies here. monolithic neutral. Absent discriminates determinations defendants-as compared types appeals-we deem warrant observation 12(a) Rules grant permission "to decree otherwise involves controlling difference materially orderly litigation.'' Presumably, permissive provision, might if, view should proceed. Brown Western Ala., 338 294, 296-299, 70 105, 106-108, 94 (Federal Employers' Liability Act pleading requirements effect action); Garrett Moore-McCormack 317 239, 243-244, 63 246, 249-250, 239 (1942) (federal Jones proof releases action). Dice Akron, C. Y.R. 342 359, 312, 96 398 (1952), misplaced. (FELA) jury made Congress FELA Act. 363, 315 (citing Bailey Central Vermont 319 350, 354, 1062, 1064-1065, 1444 (1943)). contrast, mentioned nothing rather, obviously quite each decide system. M.L.B. S.L. 555, 561, 473 (states obligation review) cases); Kohl Lehlback, 160 293, 299, 306, 40 432 (1895) (" [T]he purely concern''); McKane Durston, 153 684, 688, 913, 915, 38 867 (1894) [W]whether allowed, so, conditions, matters determine itself'').

Classification Label: 9