810 F.2d 1006 (11th Cir. 1986), 86-5353, Riley v. Wainwright

Docket Nº:86-5353
Citation:810 F.2d 1006
Party Name:Lukely RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:December 23, 1986
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1006

810 F.2d 1006 (11th Cir. 1986)

Lukely RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 86-5353

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

December 23, 1986

Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 1987.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs, Susan A. Maher, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for defendant-appellant.

Peter M. Siegel, Florida Justice Institute, Inc., Randall C. Berg, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Page 1007

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida; William J. Zloch, Judge.

Before GODBOLD, VANCE and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The defendant seeks to appeal from the denial of his motion for summary judgment. No appeal is available. 10 Wright, Miller and Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, Sec. 2715 (1983); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 701 F.2d 1365, 1368 (11th Cir.1983); In re Smith, 735 F.2d 459, 461 (11th Cir.1984). Nor does this case fall within any of the narrow exceptions to the rule of nonappealability such as the collateral order doctrine. See Smith, 735 F.2d at 461. The appeal is DISMISSED.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2817, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) held that "a district court's denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable 'final decision' within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment." In the present case the district court's denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment did not turn on an issue of law; the court denied defendants' claim of qualified immunity because the case required substantial factual development before it could be determined with finality whether Riley had been subjected to constitutional deprivation and, if so, whether some or all of the defendants were entitled to the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP