REYNOLDS v. MUNICIPALITY OF NORRISTOWN 191 178 226 109 161 (2020)

OPINION *

Appellants contest the district court's denial of summary judgment based on their qualified immunity claims. The district court concluded that there were numerous disputed facts and that summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.¹ Appellants merely challenge the validity of those factual disputes which we lack jurisdiction to review in an interlocutory appeal. Therefore, we will dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Qualified immunity cases represent an exception to the general rule that denials of summary judgment are not final decisions within the appellate jurisdiction of this Court.² “This is so because such orders conclusively determine whether the defendant is entitled to immunity from suit; ․ this question could not be effectively reviewed on appeal from a final judgment because by that time the immunity from standing trial will have been irretrievably lost.”³ However, we may only review such orders when they turn on purely legal questions, within the meaning of Mitchell v. Forsyth.⁴

By contrast, when “the district court determines that factual issues genuinely in dispute preclude summary adjudication,” appellate jurisdiction is lacking.⁵ Here, appellants challenge the district court's determination of what specific officers did or did not do.

As we lack jurisdiction to review those findings of fact by the district court, we must dismiss this appeal.

FOOTNOTES

1.   See Reynolds v. Municipality of Norristown, No. 15-0016, 2019 WL 1429550, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 28, 2019) (describing specific disputed facts in the record). This satisfies our supervisory rule in Forbes v. Twp. of Lower Merion, 313 F.3d 144, 149 (3d Cir. 2002) (“We ․ require that future dispositions of a motion in which a party pleads qualified immunity include, at minimum, an identification of relevant factual issues and an analysis of the law that justifies the ruling with respect to those issues.”).

2.   Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 771–72, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 188 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2014).

3.   Id. at 772.

4.   472 U.S. 511, 528-30, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985); see Plumhoff, 572 U.S. at 772–73, 134 S.Ct. 2012 (describing factual questions that are not immediately appealable).

5.   Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180, 188, 131 S.Ct. 884, 178 L.Ed.2d 703 (2011) (citing Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995)).

McKEE, Circuit Judge.