Filed: Oct. 28, 1999
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED _U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 10/28/99 No. 98-6829 THOMAS K. KAHN _ CLERK D.C. Docket No. CV-97-1002-CB-M DONALD WAYNE HARTLEY, as next friend of Erica Joy Hartley, PAMELA H. HARTLEY as next friend of Erica Joy Hartley, Plaintiffs - Appellees, versus TILLMAN PARNELL, Superintendent of Education, Defendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama _ (Octo
Summary: [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED _U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 10/28/99 No. 98-6829 THOMAS K. KAHN _ CLERK D.C. Docket No. CV-97-1002-CB-M DONALD WAYNE HARTLEY, as next friend of Erica Joy Hartley, PAMELA H. HARTLEY as next friend of Erica Joy Hartley, Plaintiffs - Appellees, versus TILLMAN PARNELL, Superintendent of Education, Defendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama _ (Octob..
More
[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
___________________________U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
10/28/99
No. 98-6829
THOMAS K. KAHN
___________________________ CLERK
D.C. Docket No. CV-97-1002-CB-M
DONALD WAYNE HARTLEY, as next friend of
Erica Joy Hartley, PAMELA H. HARTLEY
as next friend of Erica Joy Hartley,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
versus
TILLMAN PARNELL, Superintendent of
Education,
Defendant - Appellant.
____________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
____________________________
(October 28, 1999)
Before CARNES, Circuit Judge, HILL, Senior Circuit Judge, and HOEVELER*,
Senior District Judge.
_______________________
*
Honorable William M. Hoeveler, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida,
sitting by designation.
CARNES, Circuit Judge:
Defendant Tillman Parnell brings this interlocutory appeal from the district
FILED
court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. §
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
1983 and Title IX claims against him in his individual and official capacities.
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
Because we conclude that Parnell was entitled to qualified immunity on the claims
CLERK
against him in his individual capacity, we reverse the district court’s denial of
summary judgment with respect to those claims. We also conclude that we lack
jurisdiction over Parnell’s appeal of the denial of summary judgment on the official
capacity claims.
I. BACKGROUND
A. FACTS
In November 1996, plaintiff Erica Joy Hartley (Ms. Hartley) was a 16-year-
old high school student at Washington County High School in Washington County,
Alabama. In addition to her required classes, Ms. Hartley was enrolled in a two-
hour drafting class offered at the county’s vocational technical school, which was
located on a separate campus from the high school. Ms. Hartley’s drafting class
was taught by Kenneth Godwin. Besides knowing Godwin from class, Ms. Hartley
knew him socially from church. Also, she was friends with Godwin’s 16-year-old
2
son Kenny and had been a frequent guest in the Godwin house when visiting
Kenny.
FILED
On November 1, 1996, Godwin took Ms. Hartley and eight other students
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
from his drafting class to Birmingham to attend a two-day meeting of the
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
Vocational Industrial Clubs of America, an organization several members of his
CLERK
class had joined. Godwin and the students stayed overnight at a Birmingham hotel.
On the morning of November 2, 1996, Ms. Hartley and another student went to
Godwin’s room to ask him for the day’s schedule. After talking briefly, Godwin
directed the other student to return to her room. When Ms. Hartley attempted to
leave, Godwin grabbed her, pulled her onto his lap, and hugged her. He then laid
her down on the bed, ran his hands under her shirt, and rubbed her breasts.
Eventually he picked her up, kissed her on the lips, hugged her again, and said
“Kenny doesn’t know what he’s missing.” After that he again rubbed her breasts
before finally walking her to the door, saying, “You need to get ready.” Ms.
Hartley left and returned to her room.
Later that afternoon, on the drive back to Washington County, Godwin
stopped at a gas station. While Ms. Hartley was getting money from her backpack,
Godwin placed his hand under her shirt and again rubbed her breasts. As he did
this, he said, “I’m cold.” Later, after Godwin had returned all the other students,
3
except Ms. Hartley, to their homes, he stopped on the side of the road and pulled
Hartley onto his lap. Godwin told her, “What happened in Birmingham stays in
FILED
Birmingham. I took our friendship too far. I think a lot of you and I still have
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
hopes for you and my son.” Finally, he added, “I’m not ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
apologizing because you
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
are my sweetheart.” He then drove her home. CLERK
Godwin’s acts came as a shock to Ms. Hartley. Godwin had never behaved
in an inappropriate manner toward her in the past, he enjoyed a good reputation in
the community, and he had never been accused of any sexual or otherwise
improper behavior with his students. Because of her shock, Ms. Hartley did not
report Godwin’s acts to anyone but a few friends until her father confronted her
after receiving an anonymous phone call. She then told her parents all that Godwin
had done to her.
On November 11, 1996, Mr. Hartley contacted the local district attorney’s
office about his daughter’s allegations, and that office immediately commenced an
investigation. On November 13, 1996, at the suggestion of the district attorney’s
investigator, Ms. Hartley voluntarily wore a hidden microphone when she attended
Godwin’s class. It is unclear from the record whether Godwin said anything
incriminating while he was being recorded on that occasion.
4
On the evening of November 13, 1996, Mr. Hartley reported his daughter’s
allegations to defendant Tillman Parnell, superintendent of the Washington County
FILED
School Board. He also told Parnell the district attorney’s office was conducting an
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
investigation. ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
This was the first time Parnell was informed of Ms. Hartley’s
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
allegations or the investigation. Although Parnell was Godwin’s brother-in-law,
CLERK
the parties agree that before that time he had no reason to know of the allegations
or to suspect that Godwin might engage in such behavior.
The next morning, Parnell met with Mr. and Mrs. Hartley, the principal of
the Vocational School, and a school guidance counselor. Following that meeting,
arrangements were made to separate Ms. Hartley from Godwin. Effective
November 14, 1996, Ms. Hartley was removed from Godwin’s class and placed in
another class at the Vocational School.1 In addition, Parnell says he left it to the
principal and the guidance counselor to arrange supervision of school breaks in
order to ensure the two were kept apart.
Parnell subsequently met with Godwin to discuss Ms. Hartley’s allegations.
Although Godwin admitted to kissing Hartley on the lips, he said it was an
1
Mr. and Mrs. Hartley assert that their daughter was moved out of Godwin’s class at their
initiative and argue Parnell should not receive credit for that removal. However, they do not explain
how Ms. Hartley could have been removed from the class without the cooperation of Parnell and the
Vocational School’s principal. Regardless of how it actually came about, the fact remains that she
was removed from Godwin’s class immediately after Parnell learned of the allegations.
5
accident and that he had meant only to kiss her on the forehead. He also said he
had touched her breast accidentally while trying to give her a hug. Parnell believed
Godwin’s explanation. FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Aside from his meetings with Mr. and Mrs. Hartley and Godwin, Parnell did
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
not conduct any other investigation into Ms. Hartley’s allegations. CLERK
Parnell
explained that he did not initiate his own investigation because he believed the
district attorney’s investigation would be "a cut above" any investigative effort he
could make and that the official investigation "relieved" him of doing his own
investigation.
On November 21, 1996, Godwin was arrested and charged with child abuse,
but he was subsequently released on bond. At the next Washington County School
Board meeting following Godwin’s arrest, Ms. Hartley told the board of her abuse
by Godwin. At the conclusion of that meeting, Parnell announced that the board
would not take any action against Godwin until the criminal charges against him
were resolved. On April 15, 1997, Godwin entered a guilty plea to misdemeanor
harassment and was sentenced to probation for one year. Thereafter, at a May 1,
1997 school board meeting, Parnell recommended to the board that Godwin be
placed on probation for one year and that a letter of reprimand be placed in his file.
Parnell, who had seen the documents relative to Godwin's plea and sentence, based
6
his recommendation on the sentence given by the court. The board voted against
Parnell's recommendation. Parnell did not lobby the board to act on his
FILED
recommendation nor did he learn why certain members voted against it.
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Following the board’s decision to reject Parnell’s recommendation, Ms.
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
Hartley’s parents reported Godwin to the Alabama State Board of Education.
CLERK
Since it was possible that the state board would choose to revoke Godwin's license,
Parnell, whose term as superintendent expired July 1, 1997, did not make any
further recommendation to the county school board concerning possible action
against Godwin. After a hearing in August 1997, the state board revoked Godwin's
teaching certificate in September 1997. The Washington County School Board
then fired Godwin because he no longer had a certificate.
From November 14, 1996, the day Ms. Hartley was removed from Godwin’s
class, to his termination in September 1997, Godwin never touched, abused, or
otherwise harassed Ms. Hartley. In fact, the only contacts Godwin had with Ms.
Hartley at school after she was removed from his class were: (1) two occasions in
which Godwin came into Ms. Hartley’s classroom during class session, but not to
see her; and (2) a few occasions in which Godwin passed Ms. Hartley at school
while she was either getting off the bus, walking on the sidewalk, or coming from
7
the break-room. Godwin never spoke to her on any of those occasions, except
once when he simply said, “Good evening.”
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY CLERK
In October 1997, Ms. Hartley, by and through her parents as next friends,
filed a six-count complaint against Parnell, the Washington County School Board,
the county school board members, and Godwin. For purposes of this appeal, the
only relevant claims are the three which were brought against Parnell in his
individual and official capacities. Those three claims are as follows: (1) a 42
U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging that Parnell violated Ms. Hartley’s Fourteenth
Amendment substantive due process rights; (2) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging
that Parnell violated Ms. Hartley’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights;
and (3) a claim alleging that Parnell violated Ms. Hartley’s rights under Title IX of
the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), Pub. L. 92-318, 86 Stat. 235, 373
(1972), (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.).
Parnell subsequently moved for summary judgment with respect to each of
the three claims against him. In that motion, he argued he was entitled to qualified
immunity on the individual capacity claims. By order dated October 9, 1998, the
8
district court summarily denied Parnell’s motion. Parnell then filed this
interlocutory appeal.
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
II. ANALYSIS CLERK
On appeal, Parnell contends that the district court erred in denying him
summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity insofar as the claims against
him in his individual capacity are concerned. He also contends that the court erred
in denying him summary judgment on the claims against him in his official
capacity. We address each issue in turn.
A. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DENYING PARNELL
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ON THE CLAIMS AGAINST HIM IN HIS
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY
“Because qualified immunity provides the right not to be burdened by trial,
and not simply a defense to liability, this Court has jurisdiction to review
interlocutory appeals from orders denying summary judgment based on qualified
immunity. We review this question of law de novo.” Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d
378, 380 (11th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted).
Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to
qualified immunity "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established
9
statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818,
102 S. Ct. 2727, 2738 (1982). There is
FILED
no dispute that Parnell was acting within his discretionary authority as a public
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
official at all times relevant to this case. Accordingly, the issue before us is
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
whether Parnell’s conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional
CLERK
rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
The Supreme Court has stated that “[a] court evaluating a claim of qualified
immunity must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of
an actual [statutory or] constitutional right at all, and if so, proceed to determine
whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation."
Wilson v. Layne, --- U.S. ---, ---, 119 S. Ct. 1692, 1697 (1999) (citation and
quotation omitted). Therefore, we must first determine whether the facts, read in
the light most favorable to Ms. Hartley, establish that Parnell’s actions deprived
her of any statutory or constitutional rights. If the answer is “yes,” we must then
consider whether those rights were clearly established at the time of the events in
this case.
As mentioned earlier, Ms. Hartley contends Parnell deprived her of her
Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights, her Fourteenth Amendment
10
equal protection rights, and her rights under Title IX. We address whether Parnell
is entitled to qualified immunity on each of those claims.
FILED
1. The Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process Claim
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Ms. Hartley contends that Parnell is liable under § 1983 for depriving her of
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
her Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right not to be CLERK abused
sexually
by a state official acting under color of state law. Parnell appears to concede that
Ms. Hartley had a constitutional right not to be sexually abused by a state official
and that Godwin's actions deprived Hartley of that right. We assume so for present
purposes. Parnell argues, however, that under the circumstances of this case, he
cannot be held liable under § 1983 for Godwin's acts because he did not cause that
deprivation. We agree.
It is well established in this circuit that supervisory officials are not liable
under § 1983 for the unconstitutional acts of their subordinates “on the basis of
respondeat superior or vicarious liability." Belcher v. City of Foley, 30 F.3d 1390,
1396 (11th Cir. 1994) (citation and quotation omitted). “Supervisory liability
[under § 1983] occurs either when the supervisor personally participates in the
alleged constitutional violation or when there is a causal connection between
actions of the supervising official and the alleged constitutional deprivation. The
causal connection can be established when a history of widespread abuse puts the
11
responsible supervisor on notice of the need to correct the alleged deprivation, and
he fails to do so. The deprivations that constitute widespread abuse sufficient to
FILED
notify the supervising official must be obvious, flagrant, rampant and of continued
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
duration, rather than isolated occurrences.” Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 671
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
(11th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). In addition, the causal connection may be
CLERK
established and supervisory liability imposed where the supervisor’s improper
“custom or policy . . . result[s] in deliberate indifference to constitutional rights.”
Rivas v. Freeman, 940 F.2d 1491, 1495 (11th Cir. 1991) (citing Zatler v.
Wainwright,
802 F.2d 397 (11th Cir. 1986)).
Here, Parnell did not personally participate in Godwin’s sexual abuse of Ms.
Hartley, and there is no evidence of any prior inappropriate acts by Godwin that
should have put Parnell on notice that Godwin might commit such abuse. Nor is
there any evidence that Parnell, as superintendent, had any sort of policy in place
prior to the sexual abuse which could have led Godwin to believe that sexual abuse
of students was permitted by Parnell. Accordingly, assuming Ms. Hartley has a
substantive due process right not to be sexually abused by a teacher, Parnell did not
deprive her of that right. Because Parnell did not deprive Ms. Hartley of any
substantive due process right, the district court erred by failing to grant Parnell
qualified immunity on the substantive due process claim.
12
2. The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Claim
Next, Ms. Hartley contends Parnell is liable under § 1983 for violating her
FILED
Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection by failing to remedy Godwin’s
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
sexual abuse. She argues that Parnell violated her equal protection rights by
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
deciding not to either seek Godwin’s termination or suspend him from teaching at
CLERK
her school after he was aware of her allegations of sexual abuse. We disagree.
After Parnell learned of Ms. Hartley’s allegations of sexual abuse, Ms.
Hartley did not suffer any further sexual abuse, sexual harassment, or harm of any
sort while attending the Washington County public schools. In the absence of any
evidence of injury to Ms. Hartley after Parnell learned of her allegations, we hold
that Parnell did not deprive Ms. Hartley of her Fourteenth Amendment right to
equal protection.2
In so holding, we in no way suggest that Parnell’s decision not to terminate
or suspend Godwin would have rendered him automatically liable for depriving
Ms. Hartley of her constitutional rights even if she had suffered further harm of
some sort. Because Ms. Hartley did not suffer any injury following Parnell’s
2
We note that contrary to the representations of Ms. Hartley’s counsel at oral argument, there
is no evidence in the record that Ms. Hartley experienced any kind of emotional injury attributable
to her sporadic contact with Godwin at school after she was removed from his class. Because there
is no evidence of such injury, we need not address whether a plaintiff may rely on an emotional
injury alone to establish a deprivation of her Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection.
13
awareness of her allegations of abuse, we simply have no occasion to consider the
circumstances under which a school supervisor may be held liable under the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for harm suffered FILED
by a student
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
after the supervisor learned of prior sexual abuse by a school ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
employee.
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
Because Parnell did not deprive Ms. Hartley of her Fourteenth Amendment
CLERK
right to equal protection, the district court erred in denying Parnell qualified
immunity on this claim.
3. The Title IX Claim
Finally, Ms. Hartley contends Parnell is liable under Title IX for failing to
adequately respond to Godwin’s sexual abuse. Ms. Hartley is incorrect.
Individual school officials, such as Parnell, may not be held liable under Title IX.
See Floyd v. Waiters, 133 F.3d 786, 789 (11th Cir.) (“[A] Title IX claim can only
be brought against a grant recipient--that is, a local school district--and not an
individual.”) (citations and quotations omitted) vacated, --- U.S. ---,
119 S. Ct. 33
(1998), reinstated,
171 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 1999) petition for cert. filed (U.S. July
6, 1999) (No. 99-5197). Accordingly, the district court erred in denying Parnell
qualified immunity on the Title IX claim.
4. Qualified Immunity Where There is No
Underlying Constitutional Violation
14
The concurring opinion takes the position that the doctrine of qualified
immunity does not apply in an individual capacity public official lawsuit, unless a
FILED
court determines that a constitutional violation has been alleged (if at the motion
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
to dismiss stage) or a genuine issue of material fact concerning such a violation
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
exists (if at the summary judgment stage). To suggest that qualified immunity
CLERK
applies where no wrong has been committed, it says, is a non sequitur. What we
ought to do, according to the concurring opinion, is direct the district court to enter
summary judgment for the individual defendant on the merits, not on qualified
immunity grounds. We disagree.
Let us begin with why it matters. It matters because this is an interlocutory
appeal, and courts of appeal have jurisdiction to review interlocutorily denials of
summary judgment based on qualified immunity, but not denials of summary
judgment that go only to the merits of a claim. See Johnson v. Jones, 115 S. Ct.
2151 (1995); Mitchell v. Forsyth,
472 U.S. 511, 530,
105 S. Ct. 2806, 2817-18
(1985). The reason we have interlocutory jurisdiction when a qualified immunity
defense is rejected is that the values and interests protected by that doctrine make it
essential that a valid qualified immunity defense be vindicated sooner instead of
later. See
Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 525 -
27, 105 S. Ct. at 2815 - 16. If there had been
no qualified immunity defense raised in this case – if the only grounds for which
15
summary judgment had been sought was on the merits – the denial of summary
judgment would not be appealable; we would have to dismiss this appeal for lack
FILED
of appellate jurisdiction. See Swint v. Chambers County Commission, 514 U.S. 35,
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
43, 115 S. Ct. 1203, 1208 (1995). It is only because of the ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
qualified immunity issue
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
that we have appellate jurisdiction to review the denial of summaryCLERK
judgment.
That is what Mitchell v. Forsyth and the host of decisions following it mean.
To be sure, the matter is not without nuance. After all, where there is an
appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss or summary judgment on qualified
immunity grounds, we can and do review the underlying merits issue that is swept
along in the appeal. At first, the Supreme Court told us we could decide the
underlying merits issue, see Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226,
111 S. Ct. 1789 (1991);
then we were told it was “the better approach” to do so, County of Sacremento v.
Lewis,
118 S. Ct. 1708, 1714 n. 5 (1998); and lately the Supreme Court has
instructed us that we must first decide the merits issue, and only if we decide that
in favor of the plaintiff, i.e., conclude that the violation of a bona fide federal
right has been alleged or evidenced, should we reach the issue of whether that right
was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Wilson v. Lane,
119 S. Ct.
1692, 1697 (1999); Conn v. Gabbert,
119 S. Ct. 1292, 1295 (1999).
16
But still, the denial of a qualified immunity defense is the only procedural
vehicle a plaintiff can use to bring to us at the pretrial stage, instead of after final
FILED
judgment, any question relating to the merits. Only as it arises in the context of the
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
qualified immunity issue can any question about the merits be reviewed CIRCUIT
ELEVENTH
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
interlocutorily. The Supreme Court has characterized the merits issue as “an
CLERK
analytically earlier stage of the inquiry into qualified immunity.” See Siegert, 111
S. Ct. at 1791. It is the earlier one of two stages of the qualified immunity inquiry.
That characterization came in a case in which the Court said it had granted
certiorari “in order to clarify the analytical structure under which a claim of
qualified immunity should be addressed.”
Id. at 1793. In its clarification, the Court
labeled the merits inquiry “the first inquiry” in deciding whether the qualified
immunity defense applies in a case.
Id. (The second inquiry is whether the violated
federal right, if any, was clearly established.) Likewise, in its recent Wilson
opinion, the Supreme Court described the determination of the merits as part of the
process of evaluating a qualified immunity claim:
A court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity “must first
determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an
actual constitutional right at all, and if so, proceed to determine
whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged
violation.”
17
119 S. Ct. at 1697 (quoting Conn v. Gabert,
119 S. Ct. 1292, 1295 (1999)). Thus,
determining the merits of a claim is part and parcel of the qualified immunity
inquiry, not a separate question. FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Our own decisions recognize as much, and they are inconsistent with the
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
approach the concurring opinion would have us take. For example,CLERK
in Burrell v.
Board of Trustees of Ga. Military College, 970 F.2d 785, 792-93 (11th Cir. 1992),
the plaintiff claimed that two individual defendants had conspired with another to
have her fired in retaliation for protected speech, those two defendants moved for
summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, the district court denied that
motion, and they appealed. After examining the record we concluded that there
was insufficient evidence to support a finding that such a conspiracy had existed.
And, we reasoned: “Without a conspiracy, there obviously is no constitutional
violation. Without a constitutional violation, there can be no violation of a clearly
established constitutional right.”
Id. at 792. Having reached that conclusion, we did
not direct the district court to enter summary judgment on the merits, as the
concurring opinion would have us do. Instead, what we did in Burrell was “reverse
the district court’s denial of summary judgment on the ground of qualified
immunity.”
Id. at 796. Likewise, in Cottrell we concluded, “plaintiff has failed to
show a violation of due process, and it necessarily follows that the defendants are
18
entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.” 85 F.3d at 1491 -
92. We said, “the district court should have granted their motion for summary
FILED
judgment on qualified immunity grounds,” and we reversed its failure to do so. See
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
id. ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
It would be inconsistent with our prior decisions to hold either that the
CLERK
district court did not err in denying the plaintiff in this case qualified immunity, or
to reverse it for failing to grant summary judgment on the merits. Because our
only basis for appellate jurisdiction at this stage of the case is fastened to the issue
of qualified immunity, it would be incongruous for us to deny that the issue before
us is one of qualified immunity. Instead of denying that which is essential, we
will recognize that qualified immunity is the issue we are deciding, and we will do
here what we did in Burrell and Cottrell, which is to reverse the district court’s
denial of the individual plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on qualified
immunity grounds.
B. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DENYING PARNELL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE CLAIMS AGAINST HIM IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY
We do not have interlocutory appellate jurisdiction to review a denial of
summary judgment on an official capacity claim standing alone. See, e.g., Swint v.
Chambers County Commission, 514 U.S. 35, 50-51,
115 S. Ct. 1203, 1211-12
19
(1995). To the extent we have discretionary pendent appellate jurisdiction over the
denial of summary judgment on the official capacity claim because it is intertwined
FILED
with the qualified immunity issue, see id., we decline to exercise that jurisdiction,
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
see, e.g., Pickens v. Hollowell, 59 F.3d 1203, 1208 (11 Cir. ELEVENTH course, it
th
1995). Of CIRCUIT
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
may be appropriate for the district court to re-visit its decision on the official
CLERK
capacity claim in light of this opinion.
III. CONCLUSION
That portion of the district court’s October 9, 1998 order denying Parnell’s
motion for summary judgment on the § 1983 and Title IX claims against him in his
individual capacity is REVERSED. Parnell’s appeal of the district court’s denial
of summary judgment on the claims against him in his official capacity is
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The case is REMANDED for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
20
HILL, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring:
I have had the distinct privilege of reviewing the works of Judges Carnes
FILED
and Hoeveler which both explore our responsibilities in this interlocutory appeal.
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
In the ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
intellectual sense, both opinions are certainly well done. However, insofar
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
as the rights, responsibilities and liabilities of the parties before us are concerned,
CLERK
their differences seem to be of little, if any, importance.
With this said, as I see it, there are more angels dancing on Judge Carnes’
pin than on Judge Hoeveler’s. I therefore concur in the opinion for the panel by
the former.
Both opinions lead to a reversal and a judgment in appellant’s favor. But a
reversal of what? A reversal of a judgment of the district court denying summary
judgment in favor of appellant’s defense of qualified immunity.
Judge Hoeveler1 would go a step further, cut across some appellate cobwebs,
and, striking at the jugular vein, instruct the trial judge to dismiss the case on the
merits. Thus would a district judge be spared further consideration of a case
already found of no virtue by the court of appeals. That makes a lot of, perhaps
facial, sense.
1
Judge Hoeveler has been one of the heaviest laden district judges in America, and continues
to be one of the most thoughtful.
21
Judge Carnes, on the other hand, would redirect our attention to our limited
appellant responsibilities. This is an interlocutory appeal. We do not take appeals
FILED
piecemeal. We are authorized to review cases after final judgment. 28 U.S.C. §
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
1291. ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Except, of course, there are a few exceptions (there are always exceptions!).
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
Some rules of law protect us against more than just liability. CLERK protect
Some
us against the exposure of a trial. For example, a criminal defendant, protected
from subjection to double jeopardy by the Constitution, but ordered to trial by the
district court, may appeal the order denying his plea of double jeopardy before any
further proceedings in the trial court. See Abney v. United States, 97 S. Ct. 2034
(1977).
Here, a defendant, entitled to protection from exposure to trial by virtue of
the fact that he is immune from such a claim, is entitled to appeal the denial of his
plea of qualified immunity before judgment – indeed, before trial. See Johnson v.
Jones, 115 S. Ct. 2151 (1995). We have no further right to interfere with the
pendente lite rulings of the district court in such a case. We must address the
immunity issue and that alone.
Id.
There is merit in this. If we invited the parties to brief and argue before us
prior rulings, the interlocutory appeal of one order would become a piecemeal
appeal of all orders. A defendant with scant, if any, real claim to immunity, could
22
appeal its denial in order to have the appellate court straighten out rulings on
discovery, pretrial orders, deposition settings and the rest. That would not do.
FILED
Here, we have the case that obscures our function. It was bound to show up
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
some day! In order to rule on the narrow qualified immunity issue, it isCIRCUIT
2 ELEVENTH necessary
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
that we examine the constitutional wrong alleged to have been done so that we can
CLERK
determine whether or not it was “clearly established.” Lo and behold, we find that
there is no “clearly established” constitutional violation (because no constitutional
violation of any kind was ever asserted) so we reverse the district court and order
that summary judgment in favor of the defendant be entered. That, I believe, ends
our appellate jurisdiction of this interlocutory appeal.
We then send the case back to the district judge without observing that the
basis of our ruling, set out parenthetically above, that no constitutional wrong was
asserted, may also be the basis for a dismissal of the case on the merits. It would
be, I apprehend.3 On the face of it, we ought to go ahead and say so in our
judgment, as Judge Hoeveler suggests. But we must be careful that our judgment
2
A fine lawyer for the State of Georgia, who later became its supreme court’s Chief Justice,
the Honorable Harold N. Hill, Jr., once argued a political issue case for the state before the Supreme
Court. He said: “Your honors, we have found that if anything can happen, it will happen!” Fortson
v. Morris, 87 S. Ct. 446 (1966).
3
I suggest that the district judge will see that this is so, perhaps wondering why we didn’t
just say so!
23
here not set a precedent to include depositions, discovery and all the rest in future
interlocutory appeals of this kind.
FILED
Even though the issue before us would be resolved alike in both, the two
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
opinions here are useful. Their divergent views don’t interest the partiesCIRCUIT
ELEVENTH as much
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
as they can be expected to intrigue those who write articles for law CLERK
reviews.
Interlocutory appellate jurisdiction is grist for these millers.
TIM-BER!!!
24
HOEVELER, District Judge, concurring:
I concur in the opinion of Judge Carnes. I do, however, question the manner
FILED
in which we remand the case to the District Court. When qualified immunity is
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
asserted as a defense, a court must first determine whether the violation of a
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
constitutional right is asserted, then determine whether that right was clearly
CLERK
established (if not, then qualified immunity applies). “Deciding the constitutional
question before addressing the qualified immunity question ... promotes clarity in
the legal standards for official conduct.” Wilson v. Layne, 119 S. Ct. 1692 (1999)
(holding that the right violated was not clearly established at the time of the
offense). Although the Supreme Court in Wilson did not address the application of
qualified immunity, it affirmed the appellate court’s conclusion that qualified
immunity was proper. Following the direction of the Supreme Court in Wilson we
look first to determine if a constitutional violation has been alleged and, in this
case, if there is any evidentiary basis, on a motion for summary judgment, for such
a charge. We find that there is not.
Qualified immunity is invoked to protect the unwary -- and, thus, essentially
innocent -- public servant who, in fact, has committed the violation. Immunity is
unnecessary if he has not. Thus the District Court did not err in denying Parnell
qualified immunity. The Court erred in not granting summary judgment for
25
Parnell because of the absence of any issue on the question of a constitutional
violation. This is what we have determined.
FILED
To suggest that qualified immunity protects Parnell, where we have
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
determined that he committed no wrong, appears to be a non ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
sequitur. When the
10/28/99
THOMAS K. KAHN
District Judge addresses this case he will, of course, be faced with the dilemma of
CLERK
entering judgment for Parnell on the basis of qualified immunity where, clearly, it
does not apply. I find no problem with simply remanding for the entry of
judgment consistent with our findings. To do otherwise seems to further
complicate an already complex body of law. I find no impediment in our simply
remanding with directions consistent with our view; that our jurisdiction to
entertain this appeal grows out of the denial of a qualified immunity defense
should not affect our right to fully dispose of the issues before us on appeal --
consistent with applicable law. Indeed, we do so as to the Title IX claim.
Finally, if due to the interlocutory nature of this appeal we must be limited in
our directions to the District Court, our directions should simply require action in
conformity with our conclusions rather than entering an order which appears
inappropriate after the findings of this court.
26
