Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Coe v. Ziegler

Coe v. Ziegler, 817 F.2d 29 (6th Cir. 1987)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1987-04-24
Topic
litigation

PER CURIAM. The Plaintiffs appeal an order of the district court granting absolute or qualified immunity to four of the five Defendants in this civil action for damages and declaratory relief. The Defendants now move to dismiss the appeal on grounds that an order granting immunity is not a final, appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Plaintiffs have filed a response. *30The United States Supreme Court has recently held that the denial of a motion to dismiss based on a claim of qualified or absolute immunity is an appealable final decision. Mitchell v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Coe v. Ziegler. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
15 opinions
COE BY COE v. ZIEGLER,817 F.2d 29(6th Cir. 1987)
CHRISTOPHER COE, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND MICHAEL COE; DANNY SONDRA SMITH, BY
THEIR NEXT FRIEND MARY SMITH, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. LINDA ZIEGLER;
OFFICER ROBERT CONNELLY, OFFICER JEFFREY R. HUNT, POLICE OFFICERS —
CINCINNATI POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOHN P. O'CONNOR, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN CAPACITY
AS JUDGE, HAMILTON CO. JUVENILE COURT, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, KATHLEEN BYRNE,
ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
No. 87-3035.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Submitted March 30, 1987.
Decided April 24, 1987.
John H. Metz, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Coe.

Frank J. Wasserman, Legal Aid Society, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Smith.

Michael E. Maundrell, Rendigs, Fry, Kiely Dennis, Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendants-appellees.

Hugh O. Frost, II, Asst. City Solicitor, Cincinnati, Ohio, Richard A. Castellini, City Solicitor, for Connelly Hunt.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Before KEITH, KENNEDY and RYAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
[1] The Plaintiffs appeal an order of the district court granting absolute or qualified immunity to four of the five Defendants in this civil action for damages and declaratory relief. The Defendants now move to dismiss the appeal on grounds that an order granting immunity is not a final, appealable order under28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Plaintiffs have filed a response.Page 30

[2] The United States Supreme Court has recently held that the denial of a motion to dismiss based on a claim of qualified or absolute immunity is an appealable final decision.Mitchell v.Forsyth,472 U.S. 511,105 S.Ct. 2806,86 L.Ed.2d 411(1985);Nixon v. Fitzgerald,457 U.S. 731,102 S.Ct. 2690,73 L.Ed.2d 349(1982). In so holding, the Court reasoned that a party entitled to immunity has the right to be free from the burden of going to trial. Because theMitchellrationale does not apply when immunity has been granted this order lacks finality. The policy against piecemeal appeals is applicable, and therefore,

[3] It is ORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.