Lukely Riley v. Louie L. Wainwright
Cases that cite this one
27 later published cases cite this decision. The 21 that cite it most often are listed here.
- William C. Bennett, AKA John A. Richardson v. Garrison A. Parker, Warden, Robert M. Jackson, Officer, Daniel W. Cooper, Officer (11th Cir. 1990)
- Dennis Goddard and Bonnie Goddard v. Pete Urrea, Gene Ford (11th Cir. 1988)
- Moore v. Tri-City Hospital Authority (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1988)
- Jordan v. Doe (11th Cir. 1994)
- Horlock v. Georgia Department of Human Resources (11th Cir. 1989)
- Howell v. Evans (11th Cir. 1991)
- Sandra D. Riley v. Larue T. Camp, Lori Winkler, F.K.A. Lori Webb (11th Cir. 1997)
- Howell v. Evans (11th Cir. 1991)
- John E. Green v. J. Kenneth Brantley, Edgar v. Lewis, Craig R. Smith, Garland P. Castleberry (11th Cir. 1990)
- William Andreu v. Glen E. Sapp, Individually and as Sheriff of Charlotte County, and William E. Reilly (11th Cir. 1990)
- Cullen Reed Peppers v. Bobby F. Coates, Jr., Buster Williams (11th Cir. 1989)
- Herman Louis Dimartini v. Lynn Jay Ferrin, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation (9th Cir. 1989)
- Hudgins v. City of Ashburn (11th Cir. 1989)
- Richard Marx, Individually and Kristina Marx, a Minor v. Glenn H. Gumbinner, Bruce H. Colton and Pamela J. Roebuck (11th Cir. 1988)
- Badia v. City of Miami (11th Cir. 1998)
- Badia v. City of Miami (11th Cir. 1998)
- Tetenes v. County of Rockland (District Court, S.D. New York 1993)
- Lester v. City of Tavares (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
- Hudgins v. City Of Ashburn (11th Cir. 1990)
- Ed Rich v. Larry C. Dollar (11th Cir. 1988)
- No. 87-2167 (10th Cir. 1988)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Lukely RILEY, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 86-5353
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Dec. 23, 1986.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 1987.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs, Susan A. Maher, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Peter M. Siegel, Florida Justice Institute, Inc., Randall C. Berg, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida; William J. Zloch, Judge.
Before GODBOLD, VANCE and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The defendant seeks to appeal from the denial of his motion for summary judgment. No appeal is available. 10 Wright, Miller and Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, Sec. 2715 (1983); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 701 F.2d 1365, 1368 (11th Cir. 1983); In re Smith, 735 F.2d 459, 461 (11th Cir. 1984). Nor does this case fall within any of the narrow exceptions to the rule of nonappealability such as the collateral order doctrine. See Smith, 735 F.2d at 461. The appeal is DISMISSED.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2817, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) held that "a district court's denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable 'final decision' within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment." In the present case the district court's denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment did not turn on an issue of law; the court denied defendants' claim of qualified immunity because the case required substantial factual development before it could be determined with finality whether Riley had been subjected to constitutional deprivation and, if so, whether some or all of the defendants were entitled to the benefit of qualified immunity. The district court's order is therefore not a final appealable decision.
In addition, the Supreme Court in Mitchell v. Forsyth specifically noted that it was expressing no opinion regarding the appealability of a denial of qualified immunity when the plaintiff's action involves claims for injunctive relief that will have to be adjudicated regardless of the resolution of any damage claims. Id. 105 S.Ct. at 2812 n. 5. Because Riley requested injunctive relief as well as damages, this case is not clearly controlled by Mitchell v. Forsyth.
Wainwright's petition for rehearing is DENIED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.