iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Public Accountability

@pubaccountability.org

1.4K followers 18 following 15 posts

A nonprofit civil-rights law firm. We work nationwide to hold police and other agents of the state accountable. pubaccountability.org

Posts Replies Media

Public Accountability @pubaccountability.org · 11/11/2025

April Fonseca tried to report on the eviction of a homeless camp. Medford officers arrested her—and strip-searched her. Clear-cut? We think so. But when the district court denied qualified immunity, the officers sought an immediate appeal. We told the Ninth Circuit they should pound sand.

No. 25-2618 IN THE Plaintiff-Appellee, D. Defendants-Appellants. Athul K. Acharya Sara K. Rosenburg PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY P.O. Box 14672 Portland, Oregon 97293 (503) 383-9492 Counsel for Amici Curiae

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT April Fonseca, aka April Ehrlich, James Barringer, Scott Clauson, Brian Sjothun, Steven Furst, Trevor Arnold, Michael Todd, Geoffrey Kirkpatrick, and Randal Jewell, On appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Case No. 1:22-cv-1416-CL Hon. Mark D. Clarke BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND PUBLIC JUSTICE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF AND AFFIRMANCE November 10, 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Interest of Amici Curiae... Introduction Argument 1. The collateral-order doctrine was a mistake—an atextual, unworkable exception to Congress's final-judgment rule. 2. Qualified immunity was a mistake—an atextual, unworkable exception to Congress's civil-rights remedy. 2.1. Qualified immunity conflicts with the original text, history, and purpose of Section 1983 2.2. Qualified immunity has been roundly criticized... 2.3. The Supreme Court has begun trimming the doctrine's harshest excesses. 3. Combining the collateral-order doctrine with qualified immunity compounded the flaws of both, so the Supreme Court has since sharply limited such appeals. 3.1. Allowing collateral-order review of qualified-immunity denials flooded the courts with appeals like this one... 3.2. In response, the Supreme Court limited such appeals to cases presenting "neat abstract issues of law." 3.3. When an official makes factbound arguments on interlocutory review, the proper course is to dismiss the appeal............ 4. The officials' argument here depends on their view of the facts, so this Court should dismiss their appeal. Conclusion •••-.,,,• • • • • • • • • • • •

2 4 4 8 12 14 .17 17 19 22 ..23

...............25

13712

Public Accountability @pubaccountability.org · 28/10/2025

HUGE congratulations to our staff attorney, @sara-rosenburg.bsky.social, for filing her first brief! There's lots here—appellate jurisdiction, Eighth Amendment rights, qualified immunity, and a very juicy request for sanctions. Check out the brief at our case page, pubaccountability.org/tyree!

In short

When our client was transferred to a new prison, he told officials there that he needed a bottom bunk because he had a seizure disorder. They put him in a top bunk anyway. Three days later, he fell out of his bunk and injured his head and leg. Were the officials deliberately indifferent to his medical condition? The district court sure thought so-but that didn't stop the officials from filing a meritless interlocutory appeal. We've asked the Sixth Circuit not only to affirm, but for sanctions. Officials need to learn: Don't file an interlocutory appeal unless you can follow the rules of interlocutory jurisdiction.

0144