## Facts

- An Albuquerque police officer conducted a traffic stop for a stop-sign violation and suspected the driver was intoxicated.
- While the officer completed paperwork, the driver fled on foot into a nearby apartment complex.
- Officers went to an apartment where Benjie Lorenzo Cardenas was present; plaintiffs asserted Cardenas appeared sober, wore different clothing than the fleeing driver, and only generally resembled the suspect.
- Plaintiffs alleged the officer immediately handcuffed Cardenas very tightly, despite Cardenas producing documents indicating he was not the fleeing driver.
- Plaintiffs alleged the officer searched Cardenas’s apartment without a warrant or consent, transported him to the station, and charged him with concealing identity, eluding an officer, and traffic-related offenses.
- At the station, another officer loosened the handcuffs after observing they were excessively tight; Cardenas alleged bruising/abrasions and an inability to work for about two months.
- Cardenas was later acquitted of all criminal charges stemming from the incident.
- Cardenas and his mother sued the officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging unlawful arrest and excessive force (tight handcuffing).
- The district court denied the officer’s summary-judgment motion based on qualified immunity, reasoning that plaintiffs’ version of facts could support violations of clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.

## Issues

1. Whether the court of appeals had interlocutory jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity when the officer’s appeal primarily contested the district court’s fact assumptions and evidence-sufficiency determinations.
2. Whether the officer’s appellate arguments presented a separable, purely legal question (assuming plaintiffs’ facts) suitable for collateral-order review.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court held the officer’s arguments attacked the district court’s view of what a reasonable jury could find (probable cause and the amount of force), rather than presenting a purely legal qualified-immunity question.
- Because the appeal sought reweighing of evidence and resolution of factual disputes, the court did not reach the merits of qualified immunity.
- The district court’s denial of summary judgment remained in effect and the case proceeded in the trial court.

## Legal Principles

- A denial of qualified immunity may be immediately appealable only to the extent it raises a purely legal issue under the collateral-order doctrine.
- In an interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal, an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to revisit the district court’s determinations about which facts a reasonable jury could find or to review the sufficiency/weight of the evidence supporting the plaintiff’s version.
- A defendant cannot obtain interlocutory review by reframing fact disputes (e.g., resemblance to a suspect, credibility of identification evidence, tightness/duration/injury from handcuffs) as legal questions.
- If the appellant does not present a clean legal challenge assuming the district court’s factual view (including the “clearly established law” component), dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is required.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit dismissed the officer’s interlocutory appeal because it turned on disputed facts and evidence sufficiency, matters outside appellate jurisdiction at the qualified-immunity stage; the court therefore left the district court’s denial of qualified immunity in place without deciding the constitutional merits.


Cardenas v. Fisher, 307 F. App’x 122 (10th Cir. 2009)