Opinion

Jones v. Rankin Cty Shrf Dept

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Filed
Jan 28, 2003
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 5.0%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-60134

Summary Calendar

JAMIE JONES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RANKIN COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, ET AL.,

Defendants,

KEN DICKERSON, BILL PHILLIPS,

Defendants-

Appellants.

--------------------------------------------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:99-CV-816-WS

---------------------------------------------------------

January 24, 2003

Before JONES, STEWART AND DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ken Dickerson and Bill Phillips appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for

summary judgment based on qualified immunity in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. On appeal,

*

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.

Dickerson and Phillips argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Jamie Jones did

not produce enough competent summary judgment evidence to: (1) establish that any issues of

material fact exist; (2) show that Phillips and Dickerson had sufficient personal involvement in the

events to justify liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; or (3) establish that he suffered any injury.

If Jones’ factual allegations are accepted as true, as required by Behrens v. Pelletier, 516

U.S. 299, 313 (1996), it is not apparent that Dickerson and Phillips are entitled to qualified

immunity as a matter of law. See Hope v. Pelzer, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 2512 (2002). Because facts

material to the question of qualified immunity are in dispute, this court lacks jurisdiction over the

Dickerson and Phillips’ appeal. See Mangieri v. Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012, 1016 (5th Cir. 1994).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In light of the disposition of this

case, all outstanding motions are denied.

APPEAL DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; ALL OUTSTANDING

MOTIONS ARE DENIED.

-2-

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.