Will v. Hallock

Citation126 S. Ct. 952,163 L. Ed. 2d 836,546 U.S. 345
Decision Date18 January 2006
Docket NumberNo. 04-1332.,04-1332.
PartiesWILL ET AL. <I>v.</I> HALLOCK ET AL.
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

In a warranted search of Susan and Richard Hallocks' residence, Customs Service agents seized computer equipment, software, and disk drives. No criminal charges were ever brought, but the equipment was returned damaged, with all of the stored data lost, forcing Susan to close her computer software business. She sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, invoking the waiver of sovereign immunity, 28 U.S.C. § 1346, and alleging negligence by the customs agents in executing the search. While that suit was pending, Susan also filed this action against the individual agents under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, alleging that the damage they caused to her computers deprived her of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. After the District Court dismissed the first suit on the ground that the agents' activities fell within an exception to the Tort Claims Act's waiver of sovereign immunity, § 2680(e), the agents moved for judgment in the Bivens action. They relied on the Tort Claims Act's judgment bar, §2676, which provides that "the judgment in an action under [§] 1346(b) . . . constitute[s] a complete bar to any action . . . against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim." The District Court denied the motion, holding that dismissal of the Tort Claims Act suit against the Government failed to raise the Act's judgment bar. The Second Circuit affirmed, after first ruling in favor of jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. Under this doctrine, appellate authority to review "all final decisions of the district courts," § 1291, includes jurisdiction over "a narrow class of decisions that do not terminate the litigation," but are sufficiently important and collateral to the merits that they should "nonetheless be treated as `final,'" Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 867.

Held: A refusal to apply the Federal Tort Claims Act's judgment bar is not open to collateral appeal. Pp. 350-355.

(a) Three conditions are required for collateral appeal: the order must "`[1] conclusively determine the disputed question, [2] resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits . . ., and [3] be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.'" Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144. Those conditions are "stringent." Digital Equipment, supra, at 868. Unless they are kept so, the underlying doctrine will overpower the substantial finality interests § 1291 is meant to further. Pp. 349-350.

(b) Among the "small class" of orders this Court has held to be collaterally appealable are those rejecting absolute immunity, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 742, qualified immunity, Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, and a State's Eleventh Amendment immunity claim, Puerto Rico Aqueduct, supra, at 144-145. In each of these cases, the collaterally appealing party was vindicating or claiming a right to avoid trial, in satisfaction of the third condition: unless the order to stand trial was immediately appealable the right would be effectively lost. However, to accept the generalization that any order denying a claim of right to prevail without trial satisfies the third condition would leave § 1291's final order requirement in tatters. See Digital Equipment, supra, at 872-873. Pp. 350-351.

(c) Thus, only some orders denying an asserted right to avoid the burdens of trial qualify as orders that cannot be reviewed "effectively" after a conventional final judgment. The further characteristic that merits collateral appealability is "a judgment about the value of the interests that would be lost through rigorous application of the final judgment requirement." Digital Equipment, supra, at 878-879. In each case finding appealability, some particular value of a high order was marshaled in support of the interest in avoiding trial, e. g., honoring the separation of powers, Nixon, supra, at 749, 758, preserving the efficiency of government and the initiative of its officials, Mitchell, supra, at 526, and respecting a State's dignitary interests, Puerto Rico Aqueduct, supra, at 146. It is not mere avoidance of a trial, but avoidance of a trial that would imperil a substantial public interest that counts. Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468. Pp. 351-353.

(d) The customs agents' claim here does not serve a weighty public objective. This case must be distinguished from qualified immunity cases. The nub of such immunity is the need to induce government officials to show reasonable initiative when the relevant law is not "clearly established," Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817; a quick resolution of a qualified immunity claim is essential. There is, however, no such public interest at stake simply because the judgment bar is said to be applicable. It is the avoidance of litigation for its own sake that supports the bar, and if simply abbreviating litigation troublesome to Government employees were important enough, § 1291 would fade out whenever the Government or an official lost in an early round. Another difference between qualified immunity and the judgment bar lies in the bar's essential procedural element. While a qualified immunity claim is timely from the moment an official is served with a complaint, the judgment bar can be raised only after a case under the Tort Claims Act has been resolved in the Government's favor. The closer analogy to the judgment bar is the defense of res judicata. Both are grounded in the perceived need to avoid duplicative litigation, not in a policy of freeing a defendant from any liability. But this rule of respecting a prior judgment by giving a defense against relitigation has not been thought to protect values so important that only immediate appeal can effectively vindicate them. See Digital Equipment, supra, at 873. Pp. 353-355.

387 F.3d 147, vacated and remanded.

SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Douglas Hallward-Driemeier argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General Keisler, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, and Barbara L. Herwig.

Allison M. Zieve argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief were Brian Wolfman and Scott L. Nelson.

JUSTICE SOUTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

The authority of the Courts of Appeals to review "all final decisions of the district courts," 28 U.S.C. § 1291, includes appellate jurisdiction over "a narrow class of decisions that do not terminate the litigation," but are sufficiently important and collateral to the merits that they should "nonetheless be treated as final," Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 867 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). The issue here is whether a refusal to apply the judgment bar of the Federal Tort Claims Act is open to collateral appeal. We hold it is not.

I

The complaint alleges that Susan Hallock owned a computer software business that she and her husband, Richard, operated from home. After information about Richard Hallock's credit card was stolen and used to pay the subscription fee for a child pornography Web site, agents of the United States Customs Service, investigating the Web site, traced the payment to Richard Hallock's card and got a warrant to search the Hallocks' residence. With that authority, they seized the Hallocks' computer equipment, software, and disk drives. No criminal charges were ever brought, but the Government's actions produced a different disaster. When the computer equipment was returned, several of the disk drives were damaged, all of the stored data (including trade secrets and account files) were lost, and the Hallocks were forced out of business.

In July 2002, Susan Hallock and her company brought an action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, invoking the waiver of sovereign immunity, 28 U.S.C. § 1346, and alleging negligence by the customs agents in executing the search. The merits of the claim were never addressed, for the District Court granted the Government's motion to dismiss, holding that the agents' activities occurred in the course of detaining goods and thus fell within an exception to the Act's waiver of sovereign immunity, § 2680(e). Hallock v. United States, 253 F. Supp. 2d 361 (NDNY 2003).

While the suit against the Government was still pending, Susan Hallock filed this action against the individual agents under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging in her complaint that the agents had damaged her computers and thus deprived her of property including business income in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. After the District Court dismissed the first suit against the Government, the agents moved for judgment in the Bivens action, citing the judgment bar of the Tort Claims Act, that "the judgment in an action under [§] 1346(b) of this title shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim." § 2676.

The District Court denied the motion, holding that dismissal of the action against the Government under the Tort Claims Act was solely on a procedural ground, and thus failed to raise the judgment bar. Hallock v. Bonner, 281 F. Supp. 2d 425, 427 (NDNY 2003). The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, after first finding jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. Hallock v. Bonner, 387 F.3d 147 (2004). We granted certiorari to consider the judgment bar, 545 U.S....

To continue reading

Request your trial
424 cases
  • McIntyre v. U.S., Civil Action No. 01-CV-10408-RCL.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • 5 Septiembre 2006
    ... ... will discuss in greater detail below, I find that the United States is liable to the plaintiffs, because Connolly, acting within the scope of his ... v. Rasmussen, 90 F.3d 180, 184-85 (7th Cir.1996); Gasho v. United States, 39 F.3d 1420, 1437 (9th Cir.1994). But see Hallock v. Bonner, 387 F.3d 147, 155 (2nd Cir.2004) (distinguishing a judgment dismissing an FTCA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, on the ... ...
  • United States v. Bescond
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 5 Agosto 2021
    ... ... Bescond remains in France and has not submitted to the district court's jurisdiction. France will not extradite her. Through counsel, Bescond moved to dismiss the indictment. Her first motion argued that the indictment violated the Fifth Amendment ... Martirossian , 917 F.3d 883, 887 (6th Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) 24 F.4th 777 (citations omitted) (quoting Will v. Hallock , 546 U.S. 345, 350, 126 S.Ct. 952, 163 L.Ed.2d 836 (2006) ). True, this Court has gone beyond these exceptions. See, e.g. , United States v. Doe ... ...
  • SmileDirectClub, LLC v. Battle, No. 19-12227
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 11 Agosto 2020
    ... ... 2169. Further, the state supervisor may not itself be an active market participant. In general, however, the adequacy of supervision otherwise will depend on all the circumstances of a case. Dental Examiners , 574 U.S. at 515, 135 S.Ct. 1101. The Supreme Court's opinion in Ticor helps ... The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that very few interlocutory orders will meet these three stringent conditions. See Will v. Hallock , 546 U.S. 345, 126 S.Ct. 952, 958, 163 L.Ed.2d 836 (2006) ("[W]e have not mentioned applying the collateral order doctrine recently without ... ...
  • Tucker v. Faith Bible Chapel Int'l
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 7 Junio 2022
    ... ... See Rumsey Land Co. v. Res. Land Holdings, LLC (In re Rumsey Land Co.) , 944 F.3d 1259, 1271 (10th Cir. 2019) (noting this Court will "not address arguments raised in the District Court in a perfunctory and underdeveloped manner") (quotation marks omitted). Faith Christian argues in ... AmeriCulture, Inc. , 885 F.3d 659, 664 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting Will v. Hallock , 546 U.S. 345, 350, 126 S.Ct. 952, 163 L.Ed.2d 836 (2006) ). Emphasizing how small the class of immediately appealable collateral orders is, this ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • This Week At The Ninth: Wait Until Next Time
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 25 Enero 2022
    ...the action," and (3) "be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment." Under the Supreme Court's decision in Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 350 (2006), the third prong is satisfied if denying immediate appeal would "imperil a substantial public interest," such as "honoring the ......
  • This Week At The Ninth: Wait Until Next Time
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 25 Enero 2022
    ...the action," and (3) "be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment." Under the Supreme Court's decision in Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 350 (2006), the third prong is satisfied if denying immediate appeal would "imperil a substantial public interest," such as "honoring the ......
9 books & journal articles
  • Pleadings and Procedural Issues
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library State Action Practice Manual. Third Edition
    • 9 Diciembre 2017
    ...County Aviation Authority , 239 the court allowed an appeal from the denial of an airport authority’s motion 234. Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349 (2006) (quotations and citations omitted). 235. Id. at 349-50 (quotations and citations omitted). 236. P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf ......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Preparing for Trial in Federal Court
    • 4 Mayo 2010
    ...Cir. 1960), §12:07.3 William T. Thompson Co. v. General Nutrition Corp. , 593 F.Supp. 1443, 1446 (C.D. Cal. 1984), §5:25 Will v. Hallock , 546 U.S. 345, 352, 126 S.Ct. 952, 163 L.Ed.2d 836 (2006), §12:01.4 Wilson Group v. Quorum Health Resources , 880 F.Supp. 416 (D. S.C. 1995), Form 7-23 W......
  • Reforming Qualified-Immunity Appeals.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 87 No. 4, September 2022
    • 22 Septiembre 2022
    ...Lammon, Making Wilkie Worse]. I do not include appeals after a final judgment that raise immunity issues. (9) E.g., Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 355 (10) 472 U.S. 511, 527-29 (1985). For more on the collateral-order doctrine--and Mitchell's fit within the doctrine--see infra Part IV.C. (1......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library State Action Practice Manual. Third Edition
    • 9 Diciembre 2017
    ...152, 162 220 State Action Practice Manual Westborough Mall v. City of Cape Girardeau, 693 F.2d 733 (8th Cir. 1982), 86 Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (2006), 185, 188 Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989), 5 Wilson v. Muckala, 303 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2002), 202 Wood v. FBI......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT