Summary
This Eleventh Circuit opinion determines whether a district court order recognizing a Bivens cause of action qualifies for immediate interlocutory review under the collateral-order doctrine. The court holds that such orders do not effectively resolve important questions separate from the merits nor would they be unreviewable on final judgment, thus falling outside the narrow exception to the final-decision rule. Accordingly, the court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction without addressing the underlying constitutional and tort claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a district‑court order recognizing a Bivens cause of action is immediately appealable under the collateral‑order doctrine.
Holdings
- The Eleventh Circuit holds that Bivens‑extension orders that do not involve a qualified‑immunity issue are not immediately appealable under the collateral‑order doctrine; therefore the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Key quotations
“We conclude that Bivens‑extension orders that do not address qualified immunity are not immediately appealable under the collateral‑order doctrine. We dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.” (42)
Factual background
Rhonda Fleming was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution Tallahassee beginning in October 2018. She alleged severe mold, leaks, and asbestos exposure in the A‑South housing unit, which she said caused respiratory distress. During the COVID‑19 pandemic she contracted the virus twice after the prison failed to quarantine infected inmates, leading to serious illness and hospitalization.
Procedural history
The district court dismissed most of Fleming’s claims and, on the remaining Eighth Amendment claim, recognized a Bivens remedy. The warden appealed that recognition, arguing the order is immediately appealable under the collateral‑order doctrine. The Eleventh Circuit considered whether such Bivens‑recognition orders fall within the doctrine.