J.M. v. City of Milwaukee, 2:16-cv-00507

Plaintiffs: J.M. and the Estate of Dontre Hamilton sued the City of Milwaukee and Officer Christopher E. Manney.
District court previously denied Defendants’ summary judgment motion on qualified immunity (order April 12, 2017).
Defendants filed an immediate appeal of the qualified-immunity denial on April 24, 2017.
Plaintiffs moved to certify that the appeal is frivolous or forfeited, relying on Apostol and arguing factual disputes should bar appellate review.
Court rejected Plaintiffs’ arguments that the appeal is frivolous or forfeited, explaining appellate review may consider purely legal questions using the facts as assumed by the district court.
Court granted Defendants’ motion to stay district-court proceedings pending appeal, vacated trial and pretrial dates, and ordered that trial (if required) occur within 90 days of remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Defendants’ immediate appeal of the denial of qualified immunity is frivolous	Appeal is a sham because district court found genuine factual disputes, which should preclude appellate review	Appeal is permissible to decide the legal question whether, assuming the district-court view of facts, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity	Denied Plaintiffs’ motion to certify appeal as frivolous; appeal may proceed
Whether Defendants forfeited the right to appeal qualified immunity	Defendants failed to base their appellate position on the version of facts the district court deemed supported for summary judgment, invoking Behrens	Defendants may raise legal arguments based on the facts as assumed by the district court	Court declined to find forfeiture and left the issue for the Court of Appeals
Whether to stay district-court proceedings pending appeal	Implicitly argued by Plaintiffs that trial scheduling should proceed	Defendants requested a stay to avoid trial if appeal succeeds	Court granted stay, vacated trial and pretrial dates, and set trial to occur within 90 days after remand
Timetable for proceedings if appeal resolves in favor of Plaintiffs	Plaintiffs implicitly sought denial of stay so trial would proceed	Defendants sought stay until appellate mandate	Court ordered trial (if required) to be completed within 90 days of remand; stay until appellate mandate issued

Gutierrez v. Kermon, 722 F.3d 1003 (7th Cir. 2013) (discusses standards for interlocutory qualified-immunity appeals and limits on appellate factfinding)
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1985) (describes collateral-order doctrine permitting immediate appeal of qualified-immunity rulings)
Apostol v. Gallion, 870 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir. 1989) (district court may certify an appeal as frivolous where qualified-immunity claim is a sham)
Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1995) (limits appellate review of factual disputes in qualified-immunity interlocutory appeals; allows review of purely legal questions under assumed facts)
Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1996) (addresses procedural posture and scope of interlocutory appeals in qualified-immunity cases)
Allman v. Smith, 764 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2014) (supports staying district-court proceedings pending resolution of a qualified-immunity appeal)