Johnson v. Jones

Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsQualified ImmunityAppellate JurisdictionCollateral Order Doctrine28 U.S.C. § 1291final decisionsinterlocutory appealcollateral order doctrine

Facts

Houston Jones, a diabetic, was arrested by police officers who found him during an insulin seizure and thought he was drunk. He later awoke in a hospital with several broken ribs and sued five officers under § 1983, alleging excessive force during the arrest and a beating at the station. Three officers sought summary judgment, claiming there was no evidence that they had beaten Jones or had been present while others did so. Jones pointed to his own deposition describing force by officers and to the three officers' depositions admitting they were present at the arrest and in or near the booking room, and the district court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a genuine issue of fact.

Issue

May a public official who asserts qualified immunity immediately appeal a district court's denial of summary judgment when the appealed determination is only that the record contains sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of fact for trial? More specifically, is an evidence-sufficiency determination in a qualified-immunity case an appealable collateral order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291?

Rule

A district court's summary judgment order is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine insofar as it determines only whether the pretrial record sets forth a genuine issue of fact for trial. Mitchell v. Forsyth permits immediate appeal in qualified-immunity cases only to the extent the appeal presents a purely legal question, such as whether given facts show a violation of clearly established law.

🔒

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 Cleveland, Nora Benton sued Officer Luis Mendez under § 1983, alleging he was one of several officers who kicked her after she was handcuffed. Mendez moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity, arguing the deposition record did not contain enough evidence to show he was one of the officers involved, and the district court denied the motion because a reasonable jury could so find.

May Mendez immediately appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 on the ground that the record is too weak to create a genuine dispute about his participation?

Explanation. Immediate appeal is unavailable insofar as the order determines only that the pretrial record contains sufficient evidence to create a triable factual issue. The majority limited interlocutory review in qualified-immunity cases to purely legal questions, not disputes over evidentiary sufficiency such as whether the defendant was involved at all.