Court Opinion

ID: 9390762
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 16:00:36.702814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:36.530243
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eighth Circuit
                      ___________________________

                              No. 22-3292
                      ___________________________

                         Kameron Evans; Noah Evans

                     lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellees

                                         v.

Cabot School District; Tony Thurman, Superintendent; Henry Hawkins, Principal

                    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellants

           John Dodd, Individually; Brittany Taunton, Individually

                           lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants
                                   ____________

                  Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the Eastern District of Arkansas
                               ____________

                            Submitted: April 4, 2023
                             Filed: April 28, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.
       Kameron Evans and Noah Evans sued the Cabot School District, Tony
Thurman in his individual capacity, Henry Hawkins in his individual capacity
(collectively the “District Defendants”), and others, raising various state and federal
claims. The District Defendants appeal the district court’s1 September 30, 2022 order
denying, in part, and granting, in part, their motion for summary judgment; the order
denying their motion to amend and certify the September 30 order under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(b) or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 54(b); and the order posting the
redacted version of the September 30 order to the docket. We ordered the parties to
brief whether this court has jurisdiction to review these orders.

       Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, we conclude that, absent a grant of
permission to appeal by the district court, we lack jurisdiction over the District
Defendants’ appeal. See Thomas v. Basham, 931 F.2d 521, 522–23 (8th Cir. 1991)
(noting this court’s obligation to consider jurisdiction sua sponte when it appears to
be lacking). Although an interlocutory summary judgment order denying qualified
immunity may be appealable in certain circumstances, see, e.g., K.W.P. v. Kan. City
Pub. Schs., 931 F.3d 813, 816, 820–21 (8th Cir. 2019), the District Defendants did
not seek qualified immunity in their summary judgment motion, cf. Lee v. Driscoll,
871 F.3d 581, 584 (8th Cir. 2017) (declining to address qualified immunity argument
first raised on appeal); Ferguson v. Short, 840 F.3d 508, 511 (8th Cir. 2016)
(declining to dismiss appeal when defendants did not “altogether” fail to raise
qualified immunity in summary judgment filings). And the denial of summary
judgment is generally not otherwise final and appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291;
Langford v. Norris, 614 F.3d 445, 455 (8th Cir. 2010). Because the district court

      1
       The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.

                                         -2-
declined to certify an appeal, we therefore lack jurisdiction to review the summary
judgment and related orders. See Langford, 614 F.3d at 456.

      Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
                      ______________________________

                                        -3-