White v. City of Florence , 84 F. App'x 23 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                                         F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    DEC 11 2003
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    ROY WHITE,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                    No. 02-1408
    (D.C. No. 01-WY-1779-AJ (MJW))
    CITY OF FLORENCE; FLORENCE                             (D. Colo.)
    POLICE DEPARTMENT; EUGENE
    ROEDER, Mayor of the City of
    Florence, in his individual and official
    capacity; MIKE INGLE, Chief of
    Florence Police Department, in his
    individual and official capacity,
    Defendants,
    and
    CHUCK PRATT, Sergeant, in his
    individual and official capacity,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT       *
    Before McCONNELL , ANDERSON , and BALDOCK , Circuit Judges.
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
    this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    In this interlocutory appeal, Defendant-Appellant Chuck Pratt challenges
    the district court’s decision denying him summary judgment on his qualified
    immunity defense. “[A]n order denying qualified immunity, to the extent it turns
    on an issue of law, is immediately appealable.”     Behrens v. Pelletier , 
    516 U.S. 299
    , 311 (1996) (citation, quotation omitted). In this case, however, the district
    court clearly denied Pratt qualified immunity because there remained disputed
    material factual issues that precluded summary judgment. It is well established
    that such an order is not immediately appealable.    See Johnson v. Jones , 
    515 U.S. 304
    , 313, 319-20 (1995);   see also Behrens , 
    516 U.S. at 313
    .   We, therefore, do
    not have jurisdiction to consider this interlocutory appeal and so DISMISS it.
    Entered for the Court
    Bobby R. Baldock
    Circuit Judge
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-1408

Citation Numbers: 84 F. App'x 23

Judges: Anderson, Baldock, McCONNELL

Filed Date: 12/11/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023