The case arose from a 2013 criminal trial where Deputy Vu Do told jurors during deliberations that they could not be deadlocked and had to reach a unanimous verdict of guilty or not guilty on sexual assault charges against Marwan Mahajni. Deputy Scott Woida was present but did not intervene or report the incident to the trial judge. After Mahajni's conviction was later overturned by state courts and he served over six years in prison, he filed a Section 1983 lawsuit against both deputies claiming constitutional violations.
U.S. District Chief Judge Pamela Pepper denied qualified immunity to Deputy Do but took a different approach with Deputy Woida. As Ripple explained, the district court found that 'neither party went into any discussion analyzing the claims against Woida specifically' and that it had 'absolutely no information on [Deputy Woida] one way or the other.' The court denied qualified immunity to Deputy Woida 'without prejudice,' specifically instructing him to raise qualified immunity arguments again at summary judgment.
The Seventh Circuit emphasized that the district court had not made a definitive ruling on Deputy Woida's immunity claim. 'A decision to postpone ruling on qualified immunity is not appealable,' Ripple wrote, distinguishing the order from cases where courts make substantive determinations. The court noted that the district judge's use of the phrase 'without prejudice' demonstrated 'an intent to postpone ruling on the merits of the issue.'
The lawsuit stemmed from Mahajni's kidnapping and sexual assault trial where the court had instructed jurors they could only communicate through written notes and specifically administered an oath to the bailiffs not to speak to jurors 'unless by order of the court.' When a juror asked whether they could be deadlocked, Deputy Do violated that oath by telling them unanimity was required. Two jurors later testified at an evidentiary hearing that Do's statement influenced their decision, leading the Wisconsin courts to vacate Mahajni's conviction.
Deputy Woida argued in his motion to dismiss that he was entitled to qualified immunity, but the briefing did not address his specific conduct of failing to intervene. The court found this created a procedural problem: 'Both parties lumped Do and Woida together and spent a lot of time talking about qualified immunity... but nobody actually applied it to discuss a claim of failure to intervene and failure to report,' as Chief Judge Pepper explained during the oral ruling.
Circuit Judge David Kirsch filed a lengthy dissent arguing the court had jurisdiction and should have reversed the district court. 'Marwan Mahajni's lawsuit against Deputy Scott Woida should have been over when Mahajni failed to respond to Deputy Woida's qualified immunity argument,' Kirsch wrote. He contended that no clearly established law prohibits a bailiff's failure to intervene when a colleague makes improper statements to jurors, making qualified immunity appropriate.
The jurisdictional ruling leaves Deputy Woida to raise qualified immunity again at summary judgment, though the Seventh Circuit noted he 'has the option to move for summary judgment at any time' rather than wait for discovery. The case reflects ongoing tensions in federal courts over when qualified immunity denials become immediately appealable, with the majority emphasizing that 'the policy concerns animating the collateral order doctrine... do not justify our permitting an interlocutory appeal' where no substantive determination was made.