Steven Woodward v. Raymond D'Onofrio
674 F. App'x 563
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Woodward fled on a bicycle after his uncle called 911; Officer D’Onofrio pursued in a police cruiser and ordered him to stop.
- D’Onofrio turned into a parking-lot entrance to follow; collision occurred just inside the lot leaving Woodward pinned under the cruiser with multiple injuries.
- Woodward alleges D’Onofrio intentionally rammed his bike, bringing a § 1983 Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim for an intentional seizure.
- D’Onofrio sought summary judgment based on qualified immunity; the district court denied it, finding a genuine dispute over D’Onofrio’s intent.
- D’Onofrio filed an interlocutory appeal; Woodward moved to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Dash-cam and photo evidence showed only the aftermath, not the contact itself.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to review denial of qualified immunity | Woodward: denial based on factual dispute over intent so no interlocutory jurisdiction | D’Onofrio: records/ videos show plaintiff’s story is contradicted; appeal raises legal issues | Court: No jurisdiction because resolution depends on genuine factual dispute about intent and defendant did not concede plaintiff’s version |
| Whether the video/photo evidence blatantly contradicts plaintiff’s account so no reasonable jury could believe it | Woodward: images do not show the collision or intent and thus do not refute his account | D’Onofrio: Scott v. Harris allows accepting video over plaintiff where record blatantly contradicts claim | Court: Evidence only shows aftermath and does not blatantly contradict Woodward or establish intent; Scott inapposite |
| Whether plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim requires a showing of intentional government termination of movement | Woodward: Brower requires intentionally applied means to seize | D’Onofrio: argues accident/indeterminate intent negates Brower claim | Court: Brower governs; intent is a contested fact material to qualified immunity determination |
| Whether defendant’s failure to accept plaintiff’s facts for appellate review permits interlocutory appeal | Woodward: defendant must concede plaintiff’s factual view to present only legal questions | D’Onofrio: purportedly accepts facts but actually disputes them and draws favorable inferences | Court: Defendant did not truly accept plaintiff’s facts; mere conclusory acceptance insufficient; appeal must be dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (jurisdictional bar to interlocutory appeals that turn on factual disputes)
- Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (Fourth Amendment seizure requires intentional government termination of movement)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video that blatantly contradicts plaintiff’s account can eliminate genuine factual dispute)
- Berryman v. Rieger, 150 F.3d 561 (defendant must concede plaintiff’s factual version to present purely legal qualified-immunity question)
- Romo v. Largen, 723 F.3d 670 (denial of qualified immunity based on factual dispute is not appealable)
- Kirby v. Duva, 530 F.3d 475 (same principle regarding jurisdiction over factual disputes in qualified immunity appeals)
- Thompson v. Grida, 656 F.3d 365 (conclusory statements that facts are construed in plaintiff’s favor do not confer appellate jurisdiction)