Estate of Allan George, et al. v. City of Rifle, Colorado, et al.

This published Tenth Circuit opinion conflicts with this Court’s and other United States circuit courts of Appeals’ longstanding precedent limiting appellate review of denials of qualified immunity. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995), made clear that “a defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal a district court’s summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a ‘genuine’ issue of fact for trial.” Id. at 319-20. For nearly three decades, circuit courts have correctly taken this holding to mean that they do not have jurisdiction to contradict factual findings in an interlocutory appeal of a district court’s denial of qualified immunity. In Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380-81 (2007), this Court created an exception to the jurisdictional limitations of Johnson for cases in which available video “blatantly contradicts” the non-movant’s factual allegations, meaning that the video rendered non-movant’s allegations “visible fiction” that “no reasonable jury could believe.” Id. The Tenth Circuit’s opinion imperils the continued application of Johnson to interlocutory appeals of district court qualified immunity decisions, creating different jurisdictional limits in the Tenth Circuit than in other Circuits. Accordingly, the question presented is as follows: 1. W hether the Tenth Ci rcuit er red in expanding this Court’s decision in Scott v. Harris to swallow the rule of limited jurisdiction on interlocutory appeals of qualified immunity established in Johnson v. Jones, creating a circuit split with other Circuits’ correct application of Scott.