LUKELY RILEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
LUKELY RILEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
810 F.2d 1006
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1986)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 38 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:
The defendant seeks to appeal from the denial of his motion for summary judgment. No appeal is available. 10 Wright, Miller and Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2715 (1983); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 701 F. 2d 1365, 1368 (11th Cir.1983); In re Smith, 735 F. 2d 459, 461 (11th Cir.1984). Nor does this case fall within any of the narrow exceptions to the rule of nonappealability such as the collateral order doctrine. See Smith, 735 F. 2d at 461. The appeal is DISMISSED.
Other
PER CURIAM:
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511,530,105 S.Ct. 2806, 2817, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) held 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.” In the present case the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment did not turn on an issue of law; the court denied defendants’ claim of qualified immunity because the case required substantial factual development before it could be determined with finality whether Riley had been subjected to constitutional deprivation and, if so, whether some or all of the defendants were entitled to the benefit of qualified immunity. The district court’s order is therefore not a final appealable decision.
In addition, the Supreme Court in Mitchell v. Forsyth specifically noted that it was expressing no opinion regarding the appeal-ability of a denial of qualified immunity when the plaintiff’s action involves claims for injunctive relief that will have to be adjudicated regardless of the resolution of any damage claims. Id. 105 S.Ct. at 2812 n. 5. Because Riley requested injunctive relief as well as damages, this case is not clearly controlled by Mitchell v. Forsyth.
Wainwright’s petition for rehearing is DENIED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Lester v. THE City OF Tavares, 603 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…aised by motion for summary judgment, determined by the trial court after an adequate development of the factual record. Hannula v. City of Lakewood, 907 F. 2d 129 (10th Cir.1990); Rich v. Dollar, 841 F. 2d 1558 (11th Cir.1988); Riley v. Wainwright, 810 F. 2d 1006 (11th Cir.1986). In the present case, many facts important to both parties’ contentions do not appear in the complaint or its attachments. The amended complaint, with the arrest affidavit attached, alleged appellant was an invited guest at a privat…
-
Rich v. Dollar, 841 F.2d 1558 (11th Cir. 1988)…alternative motion for summary judgment on the basis of his qualified immunity. . The decision of the district court in this case can be distinguished from the denial of the motion for summary judgment by the district court in Riley v. Wainwright, 810 F. 2d 1006 (11th Cir.1987). In that case the district court denied the defendant’s qualified immunity-based motion for summary judgment because of its determination that “substantial [additional] factual development” was needed before it could properly evalu…
-
Bennett v. Garrison A. Parker, 898 F.2d 1530 (11th Cir. 1990)…qualified immunity is not a final appealable order if the claim is denied because the case turns on factual questions in dispute. Goddard v. Urrea, 847 F. 2d 765 (11th Cir.1988); Williams v. Cash, 836 F. 2d 1318 (11th Cir.1988); Riley v. Wainwright, 810 F. 2d 1006 (11th Cir.1986); Perry v. Thompson, 786 F. 2d 1093 (11th Cir.1986). The existence of material disputed facts will not defeat summary judgment in favor of a public official, however, when the plaintiff “fails to make a showing sufficient to establis…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1985)
- Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Celina Mestre, 701 F.2d 1365 (11th Cir. 1983)
- In re Smith v. Nat'l Bank OF Albany, 735 F.2d 459 (11th Cir. 1984)