Court Opinion

ID: 9376156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-01 21:00:41.779047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:04.643746
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1087       Doc: 39        Filed: 02/28/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED
                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-1087

        CYNTHIA JAFARY,
                             Plaintiff – Appellee,
                      v.
        JUSTIN WARD, in his individual and official capacities; ZANE ENGLAND, in his
        individual and official capacities,
                             Defendants – Appellants,
                      and

        CITY OF BECKLEY, a municipal corporation,
                             Defendant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Beckley. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00647)

        Submitted: October 20, 2022                                  Decided: February 28, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Philip W. Savrin, FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia;
        Chip E. Williams, Jared C. Underwood, PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN &
        POE, PLLC, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellants. J. Zak Ritchie, Max Gottlieb,
        HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1087      Doc: 39          Filed: 02/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Plaintiff Cynthia Jafary initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action in

        September 2020 in the Southern District of West Virginia against defendants Justin Ward

        and Zane England, who serve as police officers for the City of Beckley. Relevant here,

        Jafary alleged that, in seeking her February 2020 arrest for the West Virginia misdemeanor

        offense of obstructing an officer, Ward and England effectuated a malicious prosecution

        by fabricating probable cause and also retaliated against her for engaging in speech

        protected by the First Amendment. In December 2021, the district court denied Ward and

        England’s claims of qualified immunity, concluding that no reasonable officer in their

        position could believe that there was probable cause to arrest Jafary, and that a reasonable

        officer would have known that Jafary was engaging in constitutionally protected speech.

        See Jafary v. Ward, No. 5:20-cv-00647 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 28, 2021), ECF No. 134. With

        a jury trial looming, Ward and England noted an interlocutory appeal — pursuant to the

        collateral order doctrine — challenging the court’s denial of summary judgment on their

        immunity claims. As explained below, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

               Generally, a denial of summary judgment is not an appealable final order under 28

        U.S.C. § 1291, which authorizes appeals only from final decisions of a district court. That

        principle notwithstanding, and as the Supreme Court has recognized with respect to the

        collateral order doctrine, “a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the

        extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’ within the meaning

        of 28 U.S.C. § 1291,” despite “the absence of a final judgment.” See Mitchell v. Forsyth,

        472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985). In a collateral order appeal, as we have explained, “an appellate

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1087      Doc: 39          Filed: 02/28/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        court can . . . decide purely legal questions relating to qualified immunity.” See Witt v. W.

        Va. State Police, Troop 2, 633 F.3d 272, 275 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). An appellate court assessing such an appeal, however, is not entitled to “reweigh

        the record evidence to determine whether material factual disputes preclude summary

        disposition.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, in evaluating collateral

        order jurisdiction, we are obliged to “examine the parties’ appellate arguments to ensure

        that we only consider those legal questions formally raised on appeal.” See Iko v. Shreve,

        535 F.3d 225, 235 (4th Cir. 2008) (emphasis added).

               In the circumstances presented here, we are of opinion that the collateral order

        appeal pursued by Ward and England constitutes a premature challenge to the district

        court’s assessment of this case. More specifically, Ward and England do not raise “purely

        legal questions” in their appeal, see Iko, 535 F.3d at 235, in that their “legal arguments

        hinge repeatedly, and fundamentally, on a view of the facts contrary to that reached by the

        district court,” see Rhoades v. Forsyth, 834 F. App’x 793, 796 (4th Cir. 2020) (citing

        Winfield v. Bass, 106 F.3d 525, 530 (4th Cir. 1997) (en banc)). * Put most simply, because

        Ward and England do not “fairly challenge the district court’s specific legal conclusions

        independent of [any] factual disputes,” we are “preclud[ed] . . . from considering those

               *
                 We observe that, after Ward and England noted their appeal to this Court in
        January 2022, they filed, on March 8, 2022, a motion with the district court pursuant to
        Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See Jafary v. Ward, No. 5:20-cv-00647 (S.D. W.
        Va. Mar. 8, 2022), ECF No. 139. Seeking therein a “partial reconsideration” of the court’s
        order that underlies this collateral order appeal, Ward and England requested the court to
        “correct” its recitation of the factual record. Id. at 10. Ward and England’s yet-pending
        motion for partial reconsideration supports the proposition that their collateral order appeal
        is a premature challenge to the court’s recitation of the factual record.
                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1087      Doc: 39          Filed: 02/28/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        legal issues over which we could appropriately exercise jurisdiction at this juncture.” Id.

        at 796 (emphasis added); see also Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 314 (1995) (recognizing

        jurisdictional defect in collateral order appeal from denial of qualified immunity, when

        appellate court cannot “find any . . . separate [legal] question[s]” that are “significantly

        different from the fact-related legal issues that likely underlie the plaintiff’s claim on the

        merits” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

               Pursuant to the foregoing, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We

        dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

        presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional

        process.

                                                                                        DISMISSED

                                                       4