Jones v. McNeese
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6354
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Jones, a former correctional officer and counselor, operated Alcohol and Drug Services, LLC and Healing Circle Recovery Community, funded by two state voucher programs.
- Dr. McNeese was the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services’ assistant administrator of behavioral health-substance abuse and managed the voucher program during part of this period.
- In June 2009, McNeese received a report of questionable voucher activity and suspended vouchers to Jones’s entities pending investigation.
- Jones and his two entities filed §1983 claims alleging race discrimination under §1981 and Fourteenth Amendment rights, including deprivation of liberty through stigma.
- The district court denied McNeese’s motions for summary judgment on qualified immunity; McNeese appealed via interlocutory review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review the qualified immunity denial | McNeese contends appellate review is permissible on a pure legal question. | Jones argues limited review only for factual issues; some aspects are not appealable. | Jurisdiction exists to review the legal questions; remand for a fuller qualified-immunity analysis. |
| Adequacy of district court’s qualified-immunity analysis | District court’s analysis is insufficiently thorough to decide step two. | Court believed it applied the two-step inquiry adequately. | Remand for a more detailed, step-by-step qualified-immunity analysis. |
| Whether district court applied the two-step inquiry to all claims | Analysis did not clearly show application to each raised claim. | District court’s prior order suffices to show the approach. | Remand required to confirm proper application to all claims. |
| Effect of the district court’s summary-judgment ruling on appealability | The denial rested on summary-judgment evidence and should be reviewable. | Disputes over material facts preclude appeal from summary judgment denial. | Remand to allow proper articulation; not a complete dismissal of immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (interlocutory appealability of qualified-immunity orders with limitations)
- Fields v. Abbott, 652 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2011) (appeal limited to legal questions, not factual disputes)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (scope of final decision and evidentiary review at summary judgment)
- O'Neil v. City of Iowa City, 496 F.3d 915 (8th Cir. 2007) (need for thorough, step-by-step qualified-immunity analysis)
- Katosang v. Wasson-Hunt, 392 Fed.Appx. 511 (8th Cir. 2010) (unpublished; required thorough qualified-immunity discussion on remand)
- Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (1996) (summary-judgment analysis differs from pleadings-stage review)
- Johnson v. Phillips, 664 F.3d 232 (8th Cir. 2011) (affirming de novo review of qualified-immunity issues on appeal)
- Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439 (8th Cir. 2010) (how to evaluate summary-judgment evidence in immunity context)