Jackson v. Curry

• Decision Date: 19 April 2018
• Docket Number: No. 17-1898,17-1898
• Citation: 888 F.3d 259
• Parties: Daniel JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawn CURRY, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

888 F.3d 259

Daniel JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Shawn CURRY, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 17-1898

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 2017

DECIDED APRIL 19, 2018

Steven Edwards Art, Attorney, Samuel D. Heppell, Attorney, Jon C. Loevy, Attorney, Elizabeth Mazur, Attorney, Loevy & Loevy, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff–Appellee.

Jeffrey R. Kivetz, Esq., Attorney, Joseph Polick, Attorney, James G. Sotos, Attorney, Sotos Law Firm, P.C., for Defendant–Appellant.

Before Bauer, Manion, and Sykes, Circuit Judges.

Manion, Circuit Judge.

Daniel Jackson spent time in custody on a wrongful murder conviction. He sued Shawn Curry and Keith McDaniel, the police officers who interrogated him, for coercing his confession. The officers moved for dismissal on qualified immunity. The district court denied that motion, and the officers appeal. Lacking jurisdiction, we dismiss this appeal.

I. Background¹

On the night of August 29, 2009, Clifford Harvey, Jr., and Easton Eibeck walked through Peoria, Illinois. Eibeck was high. Four men confronted Harvey and Eibeck. When one of the four reached for his waistband, Harvey and Eibeck ran. Eibeck heard a gunshot and kept running. The shooter killed Harvey. At the scene, police found the body, bullet fragment, and a screwdriver, but no weapon, shell casing, or eyewitness. Eibeck could generally describe, but not positively identify, the shooter to Curry the next day.

About six months later, Curry conducted a photo line-up and Eibeck identified Jackson. This led to Jackson's warrantless arrest. He had consumed alcohol and drugs before his arrest. Curry and McDaniel interrogated Jackson for about two hours, on video. Jackson was high and woozy during the interrogation. He said he was not at the shooting.

McDaniel, who is black, told Jackson if he remained silent he would still be charged with murder. McDaniel told Jackson he would not receive a fair trial because he is a young black man, and the biased jury would convict him based on prejudice regardless of the facts. The officers allegedly lied about the evidence, falsely claiming multiple witnesses identified Jackson as the shooter. The officers suggested Harvey threatened Jackson with a screwdriver and he shot in self-defense. The officers fed Jackson details and allegedly pressured him to make false inculpatory statements. During the interrogation, Jackson showed signs of intoxication and diminished capacity, including slurred speech and uncoordinated movements . About two hours and fifteen minutes after the interrogation began, Jackson collapsed and fell to the floor. He did not respond to initial revival efforts. Jackson told responding paramedics he felt dizzy and his head had hurt for a couple hours. He went to the hospital.

Jackson stood trial. The State presented Eibeck's identification of Jackson and video excerpts of Jackson's interrogation. The jury convicted him of first-degree murder, and the judge sentenced him to 65 years in prison.

But Jackson claims he had nothing to do with the murder. The Illinois Appellate Court reversed the conviction, concluding the police lacked probable cause to arrest Jackson. People v. Jackson , 387 Ill.Dec. 481, 22 N.E.3d 526, 542 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014).

Jackson sued various Defendants for constitutional violations. All Defendants moved to dismiss. The only claim at issue here is Count II, which claims the officers coerced a confession in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The officers moved for dismissal of Count II based on qualified immunity. The district court denied that motion. The officers appeal.

II. Discussion

The threshold issue is whether we have jurisdiction. See In re Ortiz , 665 F.3d 906, 909 (7th Cir. 2011). We have jurisdiction over appeals from "final decisions" of district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A denial of a motion to dismiss is generally not immediately appealable because it is not final. See United States v. Michelle's Lounge , 39 F.3d 684, 702 (7th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Kaley v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1090, 1095 n.4, 188 L.Ed.2d 46 (2014).

But the collateral-order doctrine provides a limited exception. An interlocutory order is immediately appealable if it "(1) [is] conclusive on the issue presented; (2) resolve[s] an important question separate from the merits of the underlying action; and (3) [is] effectively unreviewable on an appeal from the final judgment of the underlying action." Doe v. Vill. of Deerfield , 819 F.3d 372, 375 (7th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). The collateral-order doctrine permits an immediate appeal of the denial of qualified immunity at the pleadings stage because "qualified immunity is immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability, and is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial." Armstrong v. Daily , 786 F.3d 529, 537 (7th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). Qualified immunity shields government officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Qualified immunity is both a liability defense and a limited "entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation ...." Mitchell v. Forsyth , 472 U.S. 511, 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985).

But the exception providing jurisdiction over denials of qualified immunity is limited to pure legal questions. Hurt v. Wise , 880 F.3d 831, 839 (7th Cir. 2018). We only have jurisdiction when "the issue appealed concerned, not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but, rather, whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of clearly established law." Johnson v. Jones , 515 U.S. 304, 311, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, defendants cannot immediately appeal factual determinations regarding qualified immunity. Id. at 307, 115 S.Ct. 2151. "The appeal is limited in scope for the same reason it is permitted: the question of qualified immunity is conceptually distinct from the merits of the plaintiff's claim that his rights have been violated." Armstrong , 786 F.3d at 537 (internal quotation marks omitted).

At this stage, the qualified-immunity defense only presents two legal questions: "first, whether plaintiff has alleged a violation of his constitutional rights, and second, whether the violation was clearly established in the law at the time of the defendant's conduct." Id. (citing Pearson v. Callahan , 555 U.S. 223, 232, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) ). If the district court's order denying qualified immunity turns on a pure legal issue, then it (1) conclusively determines defendant must bear the burdens of discovery; (2) is conceptually distinct from the merits of plaintiff's claim; and (3) would prove effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Mitchell , 472 U.S. at 527–30, 105 S.Ct. 2806. Such an order is a "final decision" within the meaning of § 1291. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 672, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). In other words, if the officers accept the facts and reasonable inferences favorable to Jackson for purposes of the qualified-immunity inquiry at this stage, and argue those facts and inferences do not establish a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, then we have jurisdiction to entertain that argument. Hurt , 880 F.3d at 839.

So we must decide whether the appeal raises any pure legal questions regarding the denial of qualified immunity. The officers raise three broad issues on appeal. First, they claim the district court erred by declining to review the video, which they claim shows Jackson did not manifest intoxication or unique susceptibility and the officers did not use any clearly unconstitutional tactics. Second, they claim the district court erred by applying a highly generalized formulation of the law to McDaniel's comments regarding race, and they argue these comments did not clearly violate the Constitution. Third, they claim the state court's admission of the confession into evidence at trial was a superseding cause entitling the officers to qualified immunity. We address whether we have jurisdiction over each issue in turn.

A. Video

The district court declined to review the interrogation video to make factual determinations about the officers' alleged intimidation tactics and Jackson's demeanor. Instead, the district court did what district courts normally should do at this stage: it accepted all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true, drew all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff, and determined whether the claims plausibly suggest entitlement to relief. Generally, a district court cannot consider evidence outside the pleadings to decide a motion to dismiss without converting it into a motion for summary judgment. See Tierney v. Vahle , 304 F.3d 734, 738 (7th Cir. 2002).

We lack jurisdiction to review the district court's decision not to watch the video at the pleadings stage. That decision itself does not involve a pure legal issue regarding qualified immunity, i.e., whether the officers violated Jackson's clearly established constitutional rights.

Moreover, the further-removed issues about what the video shows are fact issues. The officers claim the video shows Jackson did not manifest intoxication or unique susceptibility. But this is a fact issue over which we lack jurisdiction, and an issue the video cannot conclusively resolve anyway. The video is bound to be subject to varying interpretations about how Jackson presented, and cannot conclusively establish or eliminate all indicia of impairment customarily relied on by officers, such as any odors emanating from Jackson or the details of his eyes. The officers argue the controlling question is: in light of...