§ 1983, qualified immunity/appellate jurisdiction

Action under 42 USC § 1983 alleging excessive force; Qualified immunity; Appellate jurisdiction; Two exceptions to the rule prohibiting fact-based interlocutory appeals; Cotton v Hughes; Conceding the most favorable view of the facts to plaintiff; “Blatantly” & “demonstrably false” determination that a factual dispute exists  

Holding that neither of the two narrow exceptions to the rule prohibiting fact-based interlocutory appeals applied, the court granted plaintiff-Lovell’s motion to dismiss defendants-officers’ appeal of the denial of qualified immunity and summary judgment. He sued defendants under § 1983, alleging the officers used excessive force while booking him into the county jail. The court noted that its “jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals of qualified-immunity denials is sharply circumscribed.” It is limited to purely legal questions. One exception allowing fact-based interlocutory appeals allows a defendant to invoke the court’s “jurisdiction by ‘conced[ing] the most favorable view of the facts to the plaintiff for purposes of the appeal.’” The other allows the court, in exceptional circumstances, “‘to overrule a district court’s determination that a factual dispute exists where’” record evidence establishes it “is ‘blatantly and demonstrably false.’” The court noted that the officers described “their appeal as challenging the district court’s ‘determination that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether [their] actions violated a clearly established constitutional right,’ – the very thing” it was prohibited from reviewing. Thus, it lacked jurisdiction unless one of the exceptions applied. The first did not apply because while the officers professed to do so, they did not concede the facts. “Their recitation of facts and the substance of their briefing” belied their concession. Second, the court concluded the record did not blatantly contradict the district court’s determination that a genuine factual dispute existed. The video evidence did “not blatantly contradict Lovell’s version of events.”