Johnson v. Fankell

Supreme Court of the United States · 1997 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsSection 1983Qualified ImmunityState Court ProcedurePreemption§ 1983qualified immunityinterlocutory appeal

Facts

Petitioners were officials of the Idaho Liquor Dispensary, and respondent, a former liquor store clerk, sued them in Idaho state court under § 1983 for depriving her of property without due process when they terminated her employment. Petitioners asserted qualified immunity, arguing they reasonably believed respondent was a probationary employee with no property interest in her job and thus had not violated clearly established law. Because affidavits were submitted, the trial court treated the motion as one for summary judgment and denied it. Petitioners attempted an immediate appeal, but the Idaho Supreme Court dismissed it because the order was not appealable under Idaho's rule permitting appeals only from final judgments, orders, and decrees.

Issue

Whether defendants in a § 1983 action filed in state court have a federal right to an interlocutory appeal from an order denying qualified immunity, either because state courts must adopt the federal definition of finality or because § 1983 preempts a state's neutral final-judgment rule.

Rule

A state court hearing a § 1983 action is not required to permit an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity. The immediate appeal recognized in federal court for certain qualified-immunity rulings derives from the federal appellate jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and its collateral order doctrine, not from § 1983 itself; therefore, a state's neutral procedural rule limiting appeals to final orders is not preempted merely because it postpones review until final judgment.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Nina Torres sued two city housing inspectors in Arizona state court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging they violated her Fourth Amendment rights during an apartment inspection. The inspectors moved for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds, but the trial judge denied the motion. Arizona applies a generally applicable rule allowing appeals only from final judgments unless a separate statute authorizes immediate review.

Do the inspectors have a federal right to an immediate appeal of the denial of qualified immunity?

Explanation. A state court hearing a § 1983 case is not required by federal law to allow an interlocutory appeal from denial of qualified immunity. The Supreme Court explained that the federal immediate-appeal rule for certain qualified-immunity decisions derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the collateral-order doctrine, not from § 1983. Therefore, a neutral state rule limiting appeals to final judgments may be applied. (Derived from Johnson v. Fankell (1997).)