James v. Bartelt

(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit"s decision to exercise jurisdiction over an appeal of the District Court"s denial of qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment is in conflict with Johnson v. Jones and its own precedent; (2) whether the 3rd Circuit"s ruling that inexplicably deviates from the 3rd Circuit"s precedent in Bennett v. Murphy is an error of law; (3) whether an officer who testifies that he was not in fear of his life or the lives of others nor did he feel threatened by Gibbons before fatally shooting a suspect is entitled to qualified immunity; and (4) whether the 3rd Circuit erred as a matter of law when it interpreted the Supreme Court"s holdings in White v. Pauly and Kisela v. Hughes as creating a new standard of review to the established law when it granted Bartelt absolute immunity for his use of deadly force against a suicidal suspect.