SMITH v. BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, MJG-13-1352. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Maryland
Number: infdco20150223842
Visitors: 15
Filed: Feb. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 20, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: STAY MOTION MARVIN J. GARBIS, District Judge. The Court has before it the Motion For Stay Of Proceedings Pending Separate Appeals On Officer Church's And Offier [sic] Cambell's [sic] Motions For Summary Judgment Based On Qualified Immunity [Document 82] and the materials submitted relating thereto. The Court finds a hearing unnecessary. The Court finds that the claim of appellate jurisdiction in the pending appeal filed by Defendant Campbell is frivolous. The Court de
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: STAY MOTION MARVIN J. GARBIS, District Judge. The Court has before it the Motion For Stay Of Proceedings Pending Separate Appeals On Officer Church's And Offier [sic] Cambell's [sic] Motions For Summary Judgment Based On Qualified Immunity [Document 82] and the materials submitted relating thereto. The Court finds a hearing unnecessary. The Court finds that the claim of appellate jurisdiction in the pending appeal filed by Defendant Campbell is frivolous. The Court den..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: STAY MOTION
MARVIN J. GARBIS, District Judge.
The Court has before it the Motion For Stay Of Proceedings Pending Separate Appeals On Officer Church's And Offier [sic] Cambell's [sic] Motions For Summary Judgment Based On Qualified Immunity [Document 82] and the materials submitted relating thereto. The Court finds a hearing unnecessary.
The Court finds that the claim of appellate jurisdiction in the pending appeal filed by Defendant Campbell is frivolous. The Court denied summary judgment to Defendant Campbell based upon its conclusion that "Plaintiff has presented evidence adequate to permit a reasonable jury to find that [Defendant] Campbell[] used excess force in participating with Church in her arrest." Memorandum and Order Re: Summary Judgment [Document 77] at 11.
As stated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Culosi v. Bullock, 596 F.3d 195, 201 (4th Cir. 2010):
Whether we agree or disagree with the district court's assessment of the record evidence on [the excess force issue] that issue, however, is of no moment in the context of this interlocutory appeal. This conclusion is required because the Supreme Court and this court have made clear that a defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal a district court's summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a `genuine' issue of fact for trial. In other words, we possess no jurisdiction over a claim that a plaintiff has not presented enough evidence to prove that the plaintiff's version of the facts actually occurred, but we have jurisdiction over a claim that there was no violation of clearly established law accepting the facts as the district court viewed them.
596 F.3d at 201 (emphasis added)(internal citations and quotations omitted).
Accordingly, there is no reason to believe that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will assert jurisdiction over Defendant Campbell's appeal. Defendant Church's appeal has already been dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons:
1. The Motion For Stay Of Proceedings Pending Separate Appeals On Officer Church's And Offier [sic] Cambell's [sic] Motions For Summary Judgment Based On Qualified Immunity [Document 82] is DENIED.
2. The case shall proceed to trial pursuant to existing scheduling.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
