Cheeks v. Belmar

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

CLARA CHEEKS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:18-cv-2091-SEP ) JON BELMAR, et al., ) ) Defendants. MEMORANDUM) AND ORDER Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Interlocutory Appeal. Doc. [275]. On August 17, 2022, Defendants Jon Belmar and Frank Maloy timely filed a Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, Doc. [274], as to the Court’s August 16, 2022, Order— see which denied Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that they were not see entitled to qualified immunity, Doc. [271]—and in the instant Motion request that this Court stay all proceedings in this action until their appeal is resolved, Doc. [275]. On th August 24 , Plaintiff filed her Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Stay, arguing that Johnson v. Hay Defendants’ appeal is frivolous, lacks merit, and was made only for the purpose of delay. Doc. [280] at 3 (quoting , 931 F.2d 456, 459 (8th Cir. 1991)). Johnson A filing of a notice of appeal “confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests United States v. Ledbetter the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” , 931 F.2d at 459 n.2 (quoting , 882 F.2d 1345, 1347 (8th Cir. 1989)). “Ordinarily, [a court of appeals] lack[s] jurisdiction to hear an immediate appeal from a Langford v. Norris district court’s order denying summary judgment, because such an order is not a final Krout v. Goemmer decision.” , 614 F.3d 445, 455 (8th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted) Crow v. Montgomery (quoting , 583 F.3d 557, 563-64 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and , 403 F.3d 598, 601 (8th Cir. 2005))). The Eighth Circuit has held that it Langford “do[es], however, have ‘limited authority . . . to review the denial of qualified immunity Krout Johnson v. Jones through an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine.’” , 614 F.3d at But its “jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity extends only to abstract issues of law, not to determinations that the evidence is sufficient to permit a particular finding of fact after trial.” Langford, 614 F.3d at 455 (quoting Krout, 583 F.3d at 564 (quoting Johnson, 515 U.S. at 314)) (cleaned up). The Eighth Circuit has made clear that the question at issue here—“whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, support a finding that the state defendants violated [the plaintiff's] clearly established constitutional rights”— is a “‘purely legal’ issue” over which it does have jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal. Langford, 614 F.3d at 455 (citations omitted). “Once a notice of appeal has been filed in a case in which there has been a denial of a summary judgment motion raising the issue of qualified immunity, the district court should then stay its hand.” Johnson, 931 F.2d at 459 n.2. With respect to Plaintiff's argument regarding frivolity and delay, the Eight Circuit has explained that, “[i]f the appeal is utterly lacking in merit and for the purpose of delay only,” the Eighth Circuit will “take appropriate action.” Johnson, 931 F.2d at 459 n.2 (citation omitted). As such, Defendants’ Motion to Stay is granted. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. [275]) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is STAYED pending the resolution of Defendants’ appeal before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the trial in this matter, currently set for September 26, 2022, VACATED and will be reset, as necessary, upon the resolution of Defendants’ appeal.

Dated this 26" day of August, 2022.

SARAH E. PITL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE