Nino v. Doenges, 669 F. App'x 605

Plaintiff Ludys Nino sued Greenwich police officers Oliver Doenges and Andres Sanchez alleging an unlawful search of her home.
The district court denied the officers’ motion for summary judgment, which included a qualified immunity defense.
The officers filed an interlocutory appeal from the denial of summary judgment asserting entitlement to qualified immunity.
The Second Circuit considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal concerning factual disputes about consent to the search.
The panel reviewed established precedents distinguishing interlocutory reviewable qualified-immunity questions from factual-dispute questions that are not reviewable until final judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment	Nino argued the facts preclude immunity because a genuine dispute exists over consent	Officers argued evidence in their favor was so substantial there was no genuine factual dispute about consent	Appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the dispute over genuineness of facts is not reviewable interlocutorily

Bolmer v. Oliveira, 594 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2010) (distinguishes reviewable immunity questions from non-reviewable factual-dispute questions)
Jones v. Parmley, 465 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2006) (denial of summary judgment is generally not a final appealable order)
Salim v. Proulx, 93 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1996) (interlocutory appeal allowed when immunity is apparent on undisputed facts or plaintiff’s version of facts)