Babb v. Lake City Community College

Eleventh Circuit

Babb v. Lake City Community College

66 F.3d 270, 1995 WL 555546

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedOctober 5, 1995

DocketNo. 94-2841

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 66 F.3d 270 (Babb v. Lake City Community College) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Babb v. Lake City Community College, 66 F.3d 270, 1995 WL 555546 (11th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal of the denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. We exercise jurisdiction over such interlocutory appeals under the authority of Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2817, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). Under Mitchell, a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion for summary judgment is immediately appealable if (1) the defendant is a public official asserting a qualified immunity defense, and (2) the issue appealed is whether the facts show a violation of “clearly established” law. Id. at 528, 105 S.Ct. at 2816.

Recently, however, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that only issues of law are reviewable under Mitchell. Johnson v. Jones, — U.S. —, —, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 2156, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995). A district court’s summary judgment order on qualified immunity which determines only a question of “evidence sufficiency” regarding plaintiff’s claim is not appealable. Id. The claim of immunity must be “conceptually distinct” from the merits of the plaintiffs claim; and the interlocutory appeal from its denial must be limited to the issue of whether the undisputed facts show a violation of “clearly established” law. Id.

Where, as in this case, a district court finds that there exists a genuine issue of material fact regarding the conduct claimed to violate clearly established law, there is no “final decision” and no interlocutory appellate jurisdiction under Mitchell to review the denial. Id. An order determining the existence or non-existence of a triable issue of fact — the sufficiency of the evidence — is not immediately appealable. Id. at —-—, 115 S.Ct. at 2157-58. We, therefore, grant the plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendants’ interlocutory appeal.

We dismiss appellee’s cross-appeal because this court lacks pendent party appellate jurisdiction. Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n, — U.S. —, —, 115 S.Ct. 1203, 1211-12, 131 L.Ed.2d 60 (1995).

The appeal and cross-appeal are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal of the denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. We exercise jurisdiction over such interlocutory appeals under the authority of Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2817, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). Under Mitchell, a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion for summary judgment is immediately appealable if (1) the defendant is a public official asserting a qualified immunity defense, and (2) the issue appealed is whether the facts show a violation of “clearly established” law. Id. at 528, 105 S.Ct. at 2816.

Recently, however, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that only issues of law are reviewable under Mitchell. Johnson v. Jones, — U.S. —, —, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 2156, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995). A district court’s summary judgment order on qualified immunity which determines only a question of “evidence sufficiency” regarding plaintiff’s claim is not appealable. Id. The claim of immunity must be “conceptually distinct” from the merits of the plaintiffs claim; and the interlocutory appeal from its denial must be limited to the issue of whether the undisputed facts show a violation of “clearly established” law. Id.

Where, as in this case, a district court finds that there exists a genuine issue of material fact regarding the conduct claimed to violate clearly established law, there is no “final decision” and no interlocutory appellate jurisdiction under Mitchell to review the denial. Id. An order determining the existence or non-existence of a triable issue of fact — the sufficiency of the evidence — is not immediately appealable. Id. at —-—, 115 S.Ct. at 2157-58. We, therefore, grant the plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendants’ interlocutory appeal.

We dismiss appellee’s cross-appeal because this court lacks pendent party appellate jurisdiction. Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n, — U.S. —, —, 115 S.Ct. 1203, 1211-12, 131 L.Ed.2d 60 (1995).

The appeal and cross-appeal are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 F.3d 270, 1995 WL 555546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/babb-v-lake-city-community-college-ca11-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack