“[W]e hold that a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.”
How later courts described this case
- “[W]e hold that a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.”
- explaining that such an appeal requires appellate court only to determine question[s] of law: “whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
KARY JARVIS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 6:23-cv-508-JSS-RMN
MARVILLE TUCKER and JAMES
MACKENZIE,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
Defendants move to stay this case pending interlocutory appeal of the court’s
Order (Dkt. 153) denying Defendants’ qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s federal
unlawful seizure claim and sovereign immunity as to Plaintiff’s state law malicious
prosecution and conversion claims. (Dkts. 156, 157). Plaintiff does not oppose the
Motion. (Dkt. 157.)
A district court’s order denying the defense of qualified immunity is an
immediately appealable order within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Mitchell v.
Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985) (“[W]e hold that a district court’s denial of a claim
of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable
‘final decision’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 notwithstanding the absence
of a final judgment.”). Typically, when an interlocutory appeal is taken from the
denial of immunity, a stay of the district court’s proceedings is warranted, unless the
appeal is frivolous. Courts in this district have stayed proceedings pending an
interlocutory appeal under similar circumstances. See, e.g., H.A.L. v. Foltz, No. 3:05-
cv-873-J-33MCR, 2008 WL 591927, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2008); Little v. Williams,
No. 6:00-cv-1255-Orl-31DAB, 2002 WL 34358762, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 20, 2002).
The trial of this case was set to commence October 28, 2024. (Dkts. 115, 117.)
A stay of this action will conserve judicial resources until the Eleventh Circuit
determines whether Officers Tucker and Mackenzie violated clearly established law at
the time of the incident at issue. See Forsyth, 472 U.S. at 528 (explaining that such an
appeal requires appellate court only to determine question[s] of law: “whether the legal
norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the
challenged actions”). Thus, this threshold question is now before the Eleventh Circuit
and has not yet been resolved by that Court. Until the Eleventh Circuit determines
whether the relevant law was clearly established, Defendants should not be subjected
to trial. Moreover, only three days have passed between the time the court entered its
Order on the Motions for Summary Judgment and Officers Tucker and Mackenzie’s
motion requesting a stay of the proceedings pending appeal. Thus, the appeal is not
sought primarily for delay.
Accordingly:
1. Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Stay Pending Appeal (Dkt. 157) is
GRANTED.
2. This case is STAYED pending Defendants’ appeal to the Eleventh
Circuit. (Dkt. 156.)
3. The pending Motions (Dkts. 123, 128, 141, 152) are DENIED without
prejudice and may be reasserted post-appeal as appropriate.
4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to administratively close this case.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on October 23, 2024.
whens
JUNIE S. SNEED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record