Davis v. Allen, No. 23-1838 (7th Cir. 2024)
Facts
Davis had outstanding warrants for serious crimes, including violent felonies.
When officers located him, Davis fled into a mobile home trailer.
Deputy Allen deployed his K-9, “Koda,” into the trailer after announcing the dog’s presence and warning that the suspect would be bitten.
Koda located Davis in a bedroom, lying face down, with his hands over his head. Davis claims he was not resisting, and that he had surrendered (or at least was compliant).
The dog bit Davis’s arm and held on until officers reached him and commanded the dog to release—about two minutes later.
Davis suffered severe, lasting injury (disfigurement, pain) to his arm.
Issues on Appeal
Whether the continued dog bite after Davis was or should have been known to be subdued constituted an excessive force violation under the Fourth Amendment.
Whether Deputy Allen is entitled to qualified immunity, i.e., whether the law was clearly established that continuing a K-9 bite on a subdued suspect is unconstitutional.
Whether the Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of the district court’s denial of qualified immunity, when that denial depends on disputed factual issues.
Holding & Reasoning
The 7th Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
The Court explained that under Supreme Court precedent (e.g., Johnson v. Jones), a district court’s denial of qualified immunity is only immediately appealable to the extent it rests on pure legal issues, not factual disputes.
Here, the denial was premised on contested factual questions—such as when Allen could see Davis’s posture, whether Davis was clearly compliant, and when the dog should have been recalled—so the 7th Circuit could not properly resolve them at this interlocutory stage.
Because resolving qualified immunity would require resolving these factual disputes, the appeal could not proceed.
The Court did not reach the merits of whether Allen’s use of force was excessive or whether he was protected by qualified immunity—those questions must await fact-finding (e.g., by a jury).
Significance & Takeaways
Limits on interlocutory appeals in qualified immunity cases: This case reaffirms that appellate courts cannot take up appeals of qualified immunity denials when they depend on factual determinations—only pure legal questions are immediately reviewable.
Factual context matters for force analysis: The reasonableness of using a K-9, and especially continuing a bite on a subdued suspect, hinges heavily on specifics such as visibility, posture, compliance, and timing.
Qualified immunity is not a free pass: Even when officers invoke qualified immunity, factual issues may still arise regarding their perception of the threat and the necessity of force.
Importance of clear record development: For litigants (especially plaintiffs), building a strong factual record (bodycam video, witness statements, forensic or medical evidence) is critical in cases involving the use of police dogs or other high-force tactics.
