×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
No Jurisdiction for Some Qualified Immunity Appeals
The court of appeals for the fourth circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal by prison officials accused of being deliberately indifferent to the safety of a prisoner where they stood by while he was attacked and stabbed by a drunken prisoner. The defendants had sought summary judgment and qualified immunity in the district court and both motions were denied. The lower court held that there were material issues of disputed fact concerning actions by prison officials and that under Pressly v. Hutto, 816 F.2d 977 (4th Cir. 1987) prisoners in the fourth circuit have a right to be protected from harm by other prisoners.
The appeals court dismissed the appeals and published the ruling because until Johnson v. Jones, 115 S.Ct. 2151 (1995), [PLN, September, 1995] the fourth was one of the circuits where civil rights defendants could appeal both the facts in a case and the qualified immunity question before trial. Readers should note that appellate jurisdiction is a threshold issue that must be addressed before a federal appeals court will hear an appeal on the merits. Rulings involving government officials' qualified immunity involve two determinations: whether the constitutional right(s) at issue were "clearly established" at the time they were violated and whether any genuine issues of fact exist as to whether the defendant officials might have nevertheless believed their conduct did not violate that right.
"Johnson essentially requires an appellate court considering whether (and to what extent) it has jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory appeal from such an order to determine whether the appellant is seeking review of the clearly-established-law determination (a 'purely legal' issue), or of the genuine issue of material fact determination (a 'factual issue'), or possibly, of both. The 'purely legal' issue is immediately reviewable (hence appealable); the 'factual' or 'evidence sufficiency' issue is not."
The question is how does the appeals court determine what the appealable issue is? The court stated it would examine the arguments made by the appealing party to see if they claim any portion of the evidence is at issue or whether they are solely arguing the status of the law with regards to the rights at issue. A key element will be the district court's determination as to whether or not a genuine issue of material fact is in dispute that precludes a ruling on the qualified immunity issue. See: Winfield v. Bass, 67 F.3d 529 (4th Cir. 1995).
The appeals court dismissed the appeals and published the ruling because until Johnson v. Jones, 115 S.Ct. 2151 (1995), [PLN, September, 1995] the fourth was one of the circuits where civil rights defendants could appeal both the facts in a case and the qualified immunity question before trial. Readers should note that appellate jurisdiction is a threshold issue that must be addressed before a federal appeals court will hear an appeal on the merits. Rulings involving government officials' qualified immunity involve two determinations: whether the constitutional right(s) at issue were "clearly established" at the time they were violated and whether any genuine issues of fact exist as to whether the defendant officials might have nevertheless believed their conduct did not violate that right.
"Johnson essentially requires an appellate court considering whether (and to what extent) it has jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory appeal from such an order to determine whether the appellant is seeking review of the clearly-established-law determination (a 'purely legal' issue), or of the genuine issue of material fact determination (a 'factual issue'), or possibly, of both. The 'purely legal' issue is immediately reviewable (hence appealable); the 'factual' or 'evidence sufficiency' issue is not."
The question is how does the appeals court determine what the appealable issue is? The court stated it would examine the arguments made by the appealing party to see if they claim any portion of the evidence is at issue or whether they are solely arguing the status of the law with regards to the rights at issue. A key element will be the district court's determination as to whether or not a genuine issue of material fact is in dispute that precludes a ruling on the qualified immunity issue. See: Winfield v. Bass, 67 F.3d 529 (4th Cir. 1995).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Winfield v. Bass
| Year | 1995 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 67 F.3d 529 (4th Cir. 1995) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
Winfield v. Bass, 67 F.3d 529 (4th Cir. 10/25/1995)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 94-7346, No. 95-6422
[3] 1995; 67 F.3d 529
[4] decided: October 25, 1995.
[5] RODNEY WINFIELD, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
G. L. BASS; KELVIN CARLYLE; ANTHONY CLATTERBUCK; JAMES HICKS; GALVIN SIZEMORE; RONALD WILLIAMS, OR WALTER WILLIAMS; DONALD WILMOUTH, LIEUTENANT, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND UNKNOWN PRISON GUARDS, DEFENDANTS. RODNEY WINFIELD, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. G. L. BASS; KELVIN CARLYLE; ANTHONY CLATTERBUCK; JAMES HICKS; GALVIN SIZEMORE; RONALD WILLIAMS, OR WALTER WILLIAMS; DONALD WILMOUTH, LIEUTENANT, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND UNKNOWN PRISON GUARDS, DEFENDANTS.
[6] Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-217).
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 94-7346, No. 95-6422
[3] 1995; 67 F.3d 529
[4] decided: October 25, 1995.
[5] RODNEY WINFIELD, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
G. L. BASS; KELVIN CARLYLE; ANTHONY CLATTERBUCK; JAMES HICKS; GALVIN SIZEMORE; RONALD WILLIAMS, OR WALTER WILLIAMS; DONALD WILMOUTH, LIEUTENANT, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND UNKNOWN PRISON GUARDS, DEFENDANTS. RODNEY WINFIELD, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. G. L. BASS; KELVIN CARLYLE; ANTHONY CLATTERBUCK; JAMES HICKS; GALVIN SIZEMORE; RONALD WILLIAMS, OR WALTER WILLIAMS; DONALD WILMOUTH, LIEUTENANT, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND UNKNOWN PRISON GUARDS, DEFENDANTS.
[6] Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-217).