|
KEVIN EVERSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SIMON LEIS, Hamilton County Sheriff, and ALBERT WITTICH, JR., Deputy, Hamilton County Sheriff Department, Defendants-Appellants. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 05-00087—Susan J. Dlott, District Judge.
Argued: October 28, 2008
Decided and Filed: February 20, 2009
Before: SILER and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; LUDINGTON, District Judge.
McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. This interlocutory appeal presents several interesting jurisdictional twists. The Plaintiff, Kevin Everson, suffers from epilepsy. He sued multiple defendants, including Hamilton County Sheriff Simon Leis and Deputy Sheriff Albert Wittich, Jr., for their purported unlawful treatment of him during and after a seizure he suffered in 2003. Sheriff Leis and Deputy Sheriff Wittich moved for summary judgment on various grounds, including qualified immunity. Rather than address the merits of the motion, the district court held it in abeyance and ordered that discovery be reopened. Defendants sought interlocutory appeal of that decision.
For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that we have jurisdiction over Defendants’ qualified-immunity defenses. We further conclude that Defendants are immune from personal liability on several of Everson’s federal claims.
|
CONNECTION DISTRIBUTING CO.; RONDEE KAMINS; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Defendant-Appellee. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 95-01993—John M. Manos, District Judge.
Argued: September 10, 2008
Decided and Filed: February 20, 2009
SUTTON, Circuit Judge. At issue in this case is whether a provision of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-690, § 7513, 102 Stat. 4485, 4487 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 2257), violates (1) the First Amendment’s free-speech guarantee, either as applied to the plaintiffs or on its face, or (2) the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination. . . .
For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the government.