Larry Crumpton v. Trooper Tracy Morris ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                              United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 96-1413
    ___________
    Larry Crumpton,                            *
    *
    Appellee,                    *
    *
    v.                                    *
    *
    Trooper Tracy Morris, in his               *   Appeal from the United States
    individual capacity;                       *   District Court for the
    *   Eastern District of Arkansas.
    Appellant,                   *
    *              [Unpublished]
    Officer Ronnie Pryor, in his               *
    individual capacity,                       *
    *
    Defendant.                   *
    ___________
    Submitted:       April 3, 1997
    Filed:         April 25, 1997
    ___________
    Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Larry Crumpton brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming, inter
    alia, that Arkansas State Trooper Tracy Morris and four police officers
    used excessive force against him. Morris moved separately for summary
    judgment, asserting the defense of qualified immunity. Given the parties'
    very different accounts of the events, the district court1 held there were
    genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment on the
    excessive-force claim. Morris appeals that ruling.
    An order denying a motion for summary judgment based on qualified
    immunity may constitute an appealable order depending on the issue
    appealed. See Johnson v. Jones, 
    115 S. Ct. 2151
    , 2154-55 (1995). If the
    issue is whether the law was clearly established, or whether "all of the
    conduct which the District Court deemed sufficiently supported for purposes
    of summary judgment met the Harlow2 standard of ‘objective legal
    reasonableness,’” then it is appealable. See Behrens v. Pelletier, 116 S.
    Ct. 834, 842 (1996) (footnote added).      Where the issue is whether the
    pretrial record creates a genuine issue of material fact as to the
    occurrence of particular conduct, the order is not immediately appealable.
    See id.; Eagle v. Morgan, 
    88 F.3d 620
    , 624 (8th Cir. 1996).
    We conclude this appeal falls within the latter category.
    Accordingly, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We deny as moot the
    motion to strike Crumpton's brief.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    1
    The Honorable Garnett Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Arkansas.
    2
    Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 
    457 U.S. 800
    , 818 (1982).
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 96-1413

Filed Date: 4/25/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021