Ellis v. Yasenchack (6th Cir. 2025): Sixth Circuit Reinforces the “Concession-of-Facts” Rule in Qualified Immunity Interlocutory Appeals

Introduction

William Ellis, a Cleveland resident, brought a § 1983 action against former detective Jeffery Yasenchack alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations arising from an allegedly falsified search-warrant affidavit that led to Ellis’ arrest and prosecution. After extensive criminal and civil litigation—including a state court finding that Detective Yasenchack was “not credible” and a federal court suppression of the resulting evidence—Ellis sued for unreasonable search and seizure, false arrest, and malicious prosecution.

When the district court denied Detective Yasenchack’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity, the officer attempted an interlocutory appeal. The Sixth Circuit (Judges Clay, Gilman, and Bloomekatz) dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the defendant failed to accept the plaintiff’s version of disputed facts—an essential prerequisite under Johnson v. Jones and its progeny. The opinion re-emphasises that appellate courts may review denials of qualified immunity only where the appeal raises pure issues of law premised on facts taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Summary of the Judgment

• Disposition: Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Key Holding: An officer appealing a denial of qualified immunity must accept the plaintiff’s version of the facts; failure to do so converts the would-be legal challenge into an impermissible fact-based appeal.
• Result: The case returns to the Northern District of Ohio for trial or other proceedings; Detective Yasenchack remains a defendant without the shield of qualified immunity at this stage.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995)
   • Established that appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 does not extend to factual disputes in interlocutory qualified-immunity appeals.
2. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985)
   • Creates the narrow exception allowing interlocutory appeal when the denial of qualified immunity turns on a pure question of law.
3. Adams v. Blount Cnty., 946 F.3d 940 (6th Cir. 2020); Gillispie v. Miami Twp., 18 F.4th 909 (6th Cir. 2021); Anderson-Santos v. Kent County, 94 F.4th 550 (6th Cir. 2024); Ramsey v. Rivard, 110 F.4th 860 (6th Cir. 2024)
   • A quartet of Sixth Circuit decisions rigidly enforcing the “concede the plaintiff’s facts” rule. Ellis synthesises and reinforces these holdings.
4. King v. Harwood, 852 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2017)
   • Enumerates the four elements of a federal malicious-prosecution claim applied by the district court.

B. Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Framework of Qualified Immunity Appeal
   The panel restated the two-step qualified immunity test: (1) whether a constitutional violation occurred; (2) whether the violated right was clearly established. Only purely legal challenges to either step are reviewable mid-case.
2. Identification of “Crucial” Fact Disputes
   • Detective Yasenchack disputed whether confidential-informant information existed, whether he knew Ellis’ prior case had been dismissed, and whether false statements were “reckless.”
   • These facts directly bear on two malicious-prosecution elements: (i) officer participation in prosecution and (ii) absence of probable cause. Because those facts are “crucial,” the panel could not proceed.
3. Failure to Concede Plaintiff’s Story
   The appellant’s brief offered a narrative inconsistent with the district court’s summary-judgment view of the evidence. Under Anderson-Santos and Ramsey, such failure strips the appellate court of jurisdiction.
4. Application to the “Clearly Established” Prong
   Even the second prong could not be considered: when the legal question (“Was the right clearly established?”) depends on disputed historical facts, the court must likewise dismiss.

C. Potential Impact of the Judgment

• Clarifies Litigation Strategy: Defense counsel must decide early whether to concede plaintiffs’ factual version solely for purposes of an interlocutory appeal. Half-measures—accepting some facts while contesting others—risk dismissal and delay.
• Limits Piecemeal Litigation: The decision reinforces efficiency by preventing defendants from using interlocutory appeals to re-litigate facts already weighed by the district court.
• Strengthens Plaintiffs’ Leverage: Knowing that fact-heavy qualified immunity denials are less susceptible to interlocutory appeal may encourage plaintiffs to develop robust factual records resisting summary judgment.
• Guides District Courts: Trial judges are reminded to delineate clearly which factual disputes are material to qualified immunity, thereby signalling to appellate courts when jurisdiction is proper.
• Police-Accountability Jurisprudence: By keeping Detective Yasenchack in the dock, the opinion underscores judicial intolerance toward alleged falsification of warrant affidavits.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Qualified Immunity: A legal doctrine shielding government officials from personal liability unless they violated “clearly established” constitutional rights. It is immunity from suit, not just from liability, which is why interlocutory appeals are sometimes allowed.
• Interlocutory Appeal: An appeal taken before the final judgment in a case. Generally barred, but permitted in limited circumstances—such as legal questions tied to qualified immunity.
• “Concession of Facts” Requirement: For an interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal, the defendant must accept the plaintiff’s version of disputed facts as true. If the defendant contests those facts, the appeal involves factual issues and must be dismissed.
• Malicious Prosecution (Federal): A claim derived from the Fourth Amendment requiring initiation of a prosecution without probable cause, plus deprivation of liberty, resolved in the plaintiff’s favor.
• Probable Cause Presumption of an Indictment: Ordinarily, a grand-jury indictment establishes probable cause, but the presumption can be rebutted if the officer knowingly or recklessly made false statements material to the prosecution.

Conclusion

Ellis v. Yasenchack serves as a forceful reminder: a defendant seeking interlocutory review of a qualified-immunity denial must leave factual disputes at the courthouse door. By dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, the Sixth Circuit underscores that its role at this stage is strictly limited to legal questions that assume the plaintiff’s best-case facts. The practical takeaway for litigants is unequivocal—if factual controversies underlie the immunity defense, the proper forum is the trial court, not the appellate bench. The decision thereby promotes judicial economy, shapes litigation tactics in constitutional tort cases, and reiterates the judiciary’s unwillingness to entertain appeals aimed at fact-reweighing under the guise of qualified immunity.