Graham v. St. Louis Metro. Police Dep't, 933 F.3d 1007

On Sept. 3, 2014, police officers in an unmarked car encountered Fredrick Graham walking in a high‑crime, deserted street; Graham looked over his shoulder and pulled at his waistband.
Officers approached a house; Graham gave inconsistent answers, ran away, and threw a pistol to the ground while fleeing.
Detective Gregory Klipsch warned Graham he would use a taser if Graham did not stop; Klipsch deployed the taser once, incapacitating Graham and rendering him unconscious.
At some point Graham was tased a second time while on the ground; when he awoke multiple officers were asking him questions.
Graham sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations; the district court dismissed all claims except the excessive‑force claim concerning the second tasing and denied Klipsch qualified immunity on that claim.
Klipsch appealed the denial of qualified immunity; the Eighth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal raised disputed factual issues about whether Graham was incapacitated during the second tasing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable where the denial rests on a disputed factual finding that Graham was incapacitated when tased a second time	Graham contends he was incapacitated on the ground when Klipsch tased him a second time, creating an excessive‑force claim	Klipsch contends the record shows Graham was attempting to get up and continue running before the second tasing, so there is no factual basis for an excessive‑force claim	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: appeal presents disputed factual issues (whether Graham was incapacitated) rather than a purely legal question about clearly established law; appellate review is limited to legal questions only
Whether the first taser deployment was unconstitutional	Graham argued force was excessive	Klipsch argued use was reasonable to prevent escape and neutralize a threat	District court found the first taser use was not unconstitutionally excessive (not the basis for this interlocutory appeal)

Burnikel v. Fong, 886 F.3d 706 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard for accepting district court factual findings on appeal)
Thompson v. Murray, 800 F.3d 979 (8th Cir. 2015) (facts blatantly contradicted by the record may be disregarded)
Riggs v. Gibbs, 923 F.3d 518 (8th Cir. 2019) (orders denying qualified immunity are immediately appealable only on purely legal questions)
Mallak v. City of Baxter, 823 F.3d 441 (8th Cir. 2016) (limitations on interlocutory appeals of qualified immunity denials)
Berry v. Doss, 900 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 2018) (appellate jurisdiction limited to legal issues, not disputes over evidentiary sufficiency)
Franklin v. Young, 790 F.3d 865 (8th Cir. 2015) (appeals challenging the existence of genuine factual disputes are not within interlocutory qualified immunity review)