The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-30213
Summary Calendar
ALEXANDER PRATT,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
POLICE DEPARTMENT ST. MARTINVILLE; ET AL.,
Defendants,
JAMES PAPILLION,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CV-1478
--------------------
December 1, 2000
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Papillion appeals from the district court's denial of
summary judgment based on qualified immunity as to a claim of
excessive use of force. Concluding that we lack appellate
jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal, we dismiss.
Papillion argues that we have jurisdiction to review his
appeal because he accepts as true the plaintiff Alexander Pratt's
version of events in which Papillion pushed Pratt and pulled his
ankle. Papillion argues that under Pratt's version of events he
*
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-30213
-2-
did not violate a clearly established constitutional right and
his conduct was not unreasonable. This court lacks appellate
jurisdiction to review a denial of summary judgment that turns on
issues of material fact for trial. See Johnson v. Jones, 515
U.S. 304, 319-20 (1995). We find that factual issues remain,
including the degree of force exerted and whether Papillion knew
of Pratt's alleged prior injuries, that cannot be resolved based
on the current record. See Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 397
(1989); Ikerd v. Blair, 101 F.3d 430, 433-34 (5th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.