Wilson v. City Of Oakland
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:21-cv-03824
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Wilson v. Domby, Judge Chesney stayed the case, vacated trial dates, and overruled plaintiffs’ objection to defendants’ appeal.
The stay affects Matthew Wilson, the other plaintiffs, Kevin Domby, the other defendants, and the scheduled proceedings in the case. The trial and pretrial conference were vacated while defendants’ appeal is pending.
What happened
Matthew Wilson and other plaintiffs sued Kevin Domby and other defendants. The court had previously denied defendants’ request for summary judgment because they had not shown they were protected by qualified immunity.
Defendants appealed that ruling. The court explained that an appeal from an order denying qualified immunity automatically prevents the district court from proceeding with trial while the appeal is pending.
The court stayed the case, vacated the scheduled trial and pretrial conference, and overruled plaintiffs’ objection to the appeal. Judge Maxine M. Chesney issued the order.
The detailed version
- Wilson v. City Of Oakland · No. 3:21-cv-03824
- Maxine Chesney
- Sept. 15, 2023
Background
On August 18, 2023, the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court found that defendants had not shown they were entitled to qualified immunity, a legal protection that can shield government officials from certain lawsuits when the law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful.
On September 14, 2023, defendants filed a notice of appeal from the order denying summary judgment. The opinion describes this as an interlocutory appeal, meaning an appeal taken before the entire case has ended.
Plaintiffs’ Objection
Plaintiffs objected to defendants’ notice of appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). They argued that the appeal should be stricken because the court had not certified the order for an interlocutory appeal under that statute.
The court overruled the objection. It explained that a defendant appealing an order denying qualified immunity does not need that certification, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Mitchell v. Forsyth and its holding that such an order is appealable as a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Ruling and Effect
The court stayed the action while defendants’ interlocutory appeal is resolved. Because the case was stayed, the court vacated the October 16, 2023 trial date and the September 19, 2023 pretrial conference. Judge Maxine M. Chesney signed the order.
This order addressed the effect of defendants’ appeal and did not decide whether defendants ultimately are entitled to qualified immunity.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.