Rayvie Hall v. Kimberly Flournoy, 975 F.3d 1269

Hall bought property from which Rodriguez Favors had been evicted by a magistrate-issued writ of possession; Hall restricted access to a newly built accessory building.
Sheriff’s deputy Flournoy received an anonymous tip, used a paid confidential informant (CI) to conduct a controlled buy, and later obtained a search warrant listing Favors at Hall’s address.
Officers executed the warrant and recovered a small amount of marijuana and paraphernalia in Hall’s accessory building; Hall was arrested, later the charge was dismissed for want of prosecution.
Hall sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging illegal search, excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and a state trespass claim; district court granted summary judgment on some claims but denied qualified immunity on false arrest and malicious prosecution due to a disputed factual question whether evidence was planted.
Flournoy appealed the denial of qualified immunity interlocutorily, arguing the district court erred in finding a genuine factual dispute about planting; the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of interlocutory jurisdiction because the appeal raised only factual sufficiency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Interlocutory jurisdiction to review denial of qualified immunity	Hall: denial should stand; jury must decide facts	Flournoy: appellate review permitted because district court relied on "speculation"	Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — appellant raised only factual dispute, so interlocutory review barred under Johnson v. Jones
Whether the record creates a genuine factual dispute that evidence was planted	Hall: affidavit, writ of possession, restricted access, denial that drugs were his create triable issue	Flournoy: Hall’s evidence is conclusory and insufficient; he simply says "we didn’t do it"	District court’s finding of a genuine dispute is a factual determination; appellate court cannot weigh sufficiency now
Whether planting evidence violates clearly established law	Hall: planting would violate Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment	Flournoy: (conceded) planting would violate clearly established law	Court notes planting is clearly established wrongdoing but that concession does not provide grounds for interlocutory review of factual disputes
New on-appeal factual argument (Flournoy not "in charge" / did not find drugs)	N/A	Flournoy: she did not personally find the marijuana, so cannot be liable	Argument waived — raised first on appeal; district record showed she was "in charge" of the warrant execution

Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1869) (federal courts lack jurisdiction without statutory grant)
P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139 (1993) (collateral-order doctrine requirements for interlocutory appeal)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity protects officials from suit unless rights were clearly established)
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (denial of qualified immunity on clearly-established question is immediately appealable)
Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (no interlocutory review when appeal raises only factual sufficiency: "we didn’t do it")
Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (1996) (appellate courts may consider factual issues tied to legal questions of qualified immunity)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (appellate review permissible where legal question exists and record may blatantly contradict plaintiff’s version)
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014) (affirming interlocutory review where officers raised legal issues about constitutional violation and clearly established law)
Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 1999) (using or planting false evidence violates the Constitution)
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (conviction obtained through use of false evidence violates due process)