ROBERT CHUMAN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
CRAIG A. WRIGHT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND MARK P. FRONTEROTTA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity divests the district court of jurisdiction to proceed with trial unless the district court certifies the appeal as frivolous or forfeited.
Individual defendants appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and sought a stay of proceedings. The distr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim For Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal challenges the district court’s denial of the individual defendants’ motion for summary judgment on their claim of qualified immunity in an action for damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The individual defendant-appellants filed a notice of appeal from the denial of qualified immunity pursuant to Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), and moved in the dis trict court for a stay of proceedings pending appeal. The district court denied the motion for stay. Appellants then filed a motion for a stay in this court, which was granted pending further order of this court.
In this circuit, where, as here, the interlocutory claim is immediately appeal-able, its filing divests the district court of jurisdiction to proceed with trial. United States v. Claiborne, 727 F. 2d 842, 850 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 829, 105 S.Ct. 113, 83 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984). It has been noted, however, that this result could significantly disrupt and delay trial court proceedings. Claiborne, 727 F. 2d at 850.
While this circuit has not addressed this issue in the context of interlocutory qualified immunity appeals, other circuits have. See Yates v. City of Cleveland, 941 F. 2d 444 (6th Cir.1991); Stewart v. Donges, 915 F. 2d 572 (10th Cir.1990); Apostol v. Gallion, 870 F. 2d 1335 (7th Cir.1989). The Apostol court ruled that while a proper appeal from a denial of qualified immunity automatically divests the district court of jurisdiction to require the appealing defendants to appear for trial, a frivolous or forfeited appeal does not automatically divest the district court of jurisdiction. Apostol, 870 F. 2d at 1339. Accordingly, under the Apostol rule, a district court may certify in writing that the appeal is frivolous or waived. Without such certification, the trial is automatically delayed until disposition of the appeal. Id. Both Yates, 941 F. 2d at 449, and Stewart, 915 F. 2d at 576-78, are in accord.
This circuit has addressed the issue of the effect of appeals from interlocutory orders in a closely related context. In an appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss on the basis of double jeopardy, as in a qualified immunity appeal, the issue to be addressed by the court is whether the defendant will be forced to appear at trial. United States v. LaMere, 951 F. 2d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir.1991). The court in LaMere adopted a “dual jurisdiction” rule wherein “an appeal from the denial of a frivolous ... motion [to dismiss based on double jeopardy] does not divest the district court of jurisdiction to proceed with trial, if the district court has found the motion to be frivolous”. Id. (internal quotations omitted).
This court now adopts the rule set forth in LaMere in the context of interlocutory qualified immunity appeals. Should the district court find that the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity is frivolous or has been waived, the district court may certify, in writing, that defendants have forfeited their right to pretrial appeal, and may proceed with trial.1 In the absence of such certification, the district court is automatically divested of jurisdiction to proceed with trial pending appeal.
Because the district court did not certify this interlocutory appeal as frivolous or forfeited, the district court is automatically divested of jurisdiction to proceed with trial.
Stay granted.
. The defendants in such a case may then apply to this court for a discretionary stay. See Apostol, 870 F. 2d at 1339.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1996)
-
Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 599 U.S. 736 (U.S. 2023)…001) (double jeopardy); United States v. LaMere, 951 F. 2d 1106, 1108 (CA9 1991) (same); United States v. Grabinski, 674 F. 2d 677, 679 (CA8 1982) (same); United States v. Dunbar, 611 F. 2d 985, 988–989 (CA5 1980) (en banc) (same); Chuman v. Wright, 960 F. 2d 104, 105 (CA9 1992) (qualifed immunity); Yates v. Cleveland, 941 F. 2d 444, 448–449 (CA6 1991) (same); Apostol v. Gallion, 870 F. 2d 1335, 1338 (CA7 1989) (same); Stewart v. Donges, 915 F. 2d 572, 575–576 (CA10 1990) (both). 5 See Tr. of Oral Arg. 60–61…
-
Aisenberg v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13498 (M.D. Fla. 2004)…he claims against (1) Kunz and Bedke, (2) the United States by substitution for Kunz and Bedke in count ten of the complaint, and (3) Pellicano are DISMISSED. The Aisenbergs’ motion for a conditional certification pursuant to Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104 (9th Cir.1992) (Doc. 84), is DENIED AS MOOT. Finally, the remaining defendants’ motions to remand (Docs. 61, 62, & 105) are GRANTED and this action is REMANDED to state court. The Clerk is directed to (1) mail a certified copy of this order to the C…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- United States v. Claiborne, 727 F.2d 842 (9th Cir. 1984)
- Apostol v. Gallion, 870 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir. 1989)
- Bradshaw v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands, 469 U.S. 829 (U.S. 1984)
- Stewart v. Donges, 915 F.2d 572 (10th Cir. 1990)
- Greensboro News Co. v. Flannery, 469 U.S. 829 (U.S. 1984)
- Yates v. City OF Cleveland, 941 F.2d 444 (6th Cir. 1991)
- United States v. Lamere, 951 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1991)