Ferguson v. McDonald

Ct. of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant-police officer’s interlocutory appeal from Dist. Ct.’s order, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment that alleged qualified immunity in plaintiff’s section 1983 action, alleging that defendant used excessive force when arresting him. Although defendant’s dashcam captured defendant’s arrest of plaintiff, including moment when defendant tased plaintiff, record supported Dist. Ct.’s finding that when facts were viewed in light most favorable to plaintiff, one reasonable interpretation of dashcam video was that plaintiff was not actively resisting arrest when defendant tased him. Ct. of Appeals rejected defendant’s claim that dashcam video contradicted Dist. Ct.’s finding that video was open to interpretation, and while dashcam video could support defendant’s claim that plaintiff had actively resisted arrest moments before defendant had tased him, Ct. of Appeals’ review of dashcam video did not utterly discredit Dist. Ct.’s finding that there was factual dispute over whether plaintiff was actively resisting arrest when defendant had tased him. As such, instant factual dispute deprived Ct. of Appeals of jurisdiction to consider instant interlocutory appeal. Ct. further observed that Dist. Ct.’s finding did not foreclose availability of qualified immunity at trial.