Jok v. City of Burlington
96f4th291
2d Cir.2024Background
- Mabior Jok was involved in a physical altercation outside a bar in Burlington, Vermont, during which Officer Joseph Corrow of the Burlington Police Department used force to subdue Jok, who was injured and later hospitalized.
- Jok was charged with disorderly conduct, but the charge was dismissed.
- Jok sued Corrow and others, alleging excessive force in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
- Corrow moved for summary judgment, arguing qualified immunity, but the district court denied the motion due to genuine disputes of material fact.
- Corrow appealed the denial, seeking interlocutory review on qualified immunity grounds.
- The Second Circuit was tasked with determining whether it had appellate jurisdiction over Corrow's interlocutory appeal of the denial of qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immediate appealability of denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity | Denial involved genuine disputes of material fact | Court has jurisdiction; facts are undisputed and legal only | No jurisdiction; denial involved factual disputes |
| Whether Corrow accepted plaintiff's facts for appeal | Corrow continues to contest plaintiff's account | Corrow claims to rely only on undisputed facts | Corrow did not accept plaintiff's facts; relied on disputed facts |
| Sufficiency of facts for qualified immunity | Disputes about what happened preclude summary judgment | Officer acted lawfully given claimed facts (self-defense, risk) | Factual disputes must be resolved before immunity can be determined |
| Effect of bodycam evidence as undisputed proof | Footage does not clearly support Corrow’s account | Claims video proves his version is correct | Footage is not dispositive; factual issues remain |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (defines finality for appellate jurisdiction)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (immediate appeal only on legal questions after denial of qualified immunity)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (collateral order doctrine and interlocutory appeal for qualified immunity)
- Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (interlocutory appeals not allowed for factual disputes on qualified immunity)
- Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35 (collateral order doctrine applies to certain limited classes of decisions)