Roger Gillispie v. Miami Twp., Ohio

Summary

In this interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The court held that a defendant appealing a qualified-immunity denial must accept the plaintiff's version of the facts and may only raise pure legal questions; because the defendant officer's arguments instead disputed the district court's factual determinations regarding genuine issues of material fact, the court had no jurisdiction. The underlying § 1983 claims involved suppression of exculpatory evidence (Brady violations), an unduly suggestive eyewitness identification procedure, fabrication of inculpatory evidence, malicious prosecution, and destruction of exculpatory evidence.

Holdings

1. The court lacks jurisdiction because Moore's appeal is based on factual disputes and he fails to concede the plaintiff's version of the facts, which are crucial to his appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court has appellate jurisdiction over Moore's interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity, given that Moore's arguments challenge the district court's factual determinations rather than raising purely legal questions.

Disposition

dismissed