Mallak v. City of Baxter
823 F.3d 441
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Mallak (a Minnesota attorney) obtained a DPS audit showing ~190 accesses of her driver-records (2003–2012); she sued multiple municipal defendants under the DPPA alleging improper accesses.
- The district court dismissed DPPA claims outside the 4-year limitations window and all constitutional/common-law claims, permitting DPPA claims for accesses within the limitations period by five counties and six cities.
- After limited discovery, several officers moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity; the district court granted it for officers who gave definitive permissible explanations but denied it for four officers (Runde, Jones, Darling, Goff).
- The four disputed accesses involved suggestive facts: prior personal/professional relationships with Mallak, timing tied to significant events (e.g., resignation from DWI court team; child on life support), and equivocal or forgotten explanations from the officers.
- The district court concluded genuine disputes of material fact remained about the officers’ purposes for accessing Mallak’s records, so summary judgment on qualified immunity was premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of qualified immunity on summary judgment is appealable | Mallak: factual issues exist about improper-purpose accesses under the DPPA | Defendants: appealable legal question; record lacks factual dispute about improper purpose | Dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction because material factual disputes remain |
| Whether record conclusively forecloses plaintiff’s theory of impermissible purpose | Mallak: relationships and timing create inference of improper personal motives | Defendants: no evidence creates a genuine dispute; officers gave permissible reasons | Court: record does not conclusively disprove Mallak’s theory; factual disputes persist |
| Whether officers’ equivocal explanations defeat qualified immunity at summary judgment | Mallak: lack of definitive, permissible explanations supports trial facts | Defendants: uncertainty cannot bar interlocutory review of immunity | Court: under Johnson v. Jones, cannot review district court’s finding that factual disputes exist |
| Whether court can resolve immunity as matter of law on current record | Mallak: further discovery needed (depositions) to resolve intent | Defendants: this is a purely legal entitlement to immunity decision | Court: entitlement depends on disputed facts; interlocutory appellate jurisdiction absent conclusive record is lacking |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (established qualified immunity standard)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (limits interlocutory appeals of denials of qualified immunity to purely legal questions)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (appellate review permitted where video evidence conclusively resolves factual dispute)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014) (appeal allowed where record conclusively disproved plaintiff’s version of events)
- McDonough v. Anoka Cty., 799 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2015) (relationships and suspicious access patterns can support inference of improper DPPA access)
- Maracich v. Spears, 570 U.S. 48 (2013) (construing DPPA’s litigation-use exception)
- Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (1991) (importance of early resolution of immunity questions)