orders premised on the denial of qualified immunity under Texas law are appealable in federal court to the same extent as district court orders premised on the denial of federal law immunity
How later courts described this case
- orders premised on the denial of qualified immunity under Texas law are appealable in federal court to the same extent as district court orders premised on the denial of federal law immunity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40709
Summary Calendar
CARMEN DUGAN, Individually and as next
friend of Jane B., a minor,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HARRISON COUNTY, TEXAS; PATRICK A. JOHNSON,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:01-CV-187
January 3, 2003
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Patrick Johnson appeals the district court’s summary judgment
ruling denying him qualified and official immunity from the
plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims. The denial of
a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is
immediately appealable only when based on an issue of law.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
Rodriguez v. Neeley, 169 F.3d 220, 222 (5th Cir. 1999). Orders
determining “only a question of ‘evidence sufficiency,’ i.e., which
facts a party may, or may not, be able to prove at trial,” are not
based on an issue of law and are not immediately appealable.
Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313 (1995).
Insofar as Johnson challenges the district court’s legal
determination that federal law clearly established that Jane B.’s
custodial status entitled her the protections of the Fourteenth and
Eighth Amendments during her stay in the S.T.A.R. boot camp, he
does so for the first time on appeal. Because refusing to address
Johnson’s qualified immunity argument on interlocutory appeal will
not result in grave injustice, we decline to address that argument
at this time. See Kelly v. Foti, 77 F.3d 819, 822 (5th Cir. 1996).
Johnson’s remaining appellate arguments challenge the district
court’s determination that Jane B. adduced sufficient evidence to
raise a genuine issue of material fact suggesting that Johnson’s
conduct was objectively unreasonable. Johnson’s remaining
arguments, therefore, do not challenge an appealable final order,
and we accordingly lack jurisdiction to review them. See Reyes v.
City of Richmond, 287 F.3d 346, 351 (5th Cir. 2002); Cantu v.
Rocha, 77 F.3d 795, 804 (5th Cir. 1996) (orders premised on the
denial of qualified immunity under Texas law are appealable in
federal court to the same extent as district court orders premised
on the denial of federal law immunity).
2
APPEAL DISMISSED.
3