Matthew Harmann v. James Martin Arganbright, in his individual capacity, also known as Marty

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1467
___________________________
Matthew Harmann
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
James Martin Arganbright, in his individual capacity, also known as Marty;
Jeremy Bennett, in his individual capacity
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellants
Dana Minteer, in her individual capacity
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: October 27, 2025
Filed: October 30, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________

-- 1 of 2 --

PER CURIAM.
James Arganbright and Jeremy Bennett appeal the district court’s1 interlocutory
order denying in part their motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity in Matthew
Harmann’s retaliation-related civil rights action. After careful review, we conclude
that the district court properly denied the motion to dismiss as to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983
claims and the state retaliation claims. See Stanley v. Finnegan, 899 F.3d 623, 625
(8th Cir. 2018) (stating an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss § 1983
claims based on qualified immunity is immediately appealable); Galanakis v. City of
Newton, 134 F.4th 998, 1006 (8th Cir. 2025) (discussing when this court has pendent
jurisdiction over state claims in an interlocutory appeal); Faulk v. City of St. Louis,
30 F.4th 739, 744 (8th Cir. 2022) (discussing the standard of review on the denial of
qualified immunity under § 1983); Iowa Code § 80F.1(15), (16) (prohibiting
retaliation against officers for engaging in political activity).
As to the district court’s ruling on Harmann’s state claim related to the release
of confidential information, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction, as the issues are
not inextricably intertwined with his section 1983 claims. See Galanakis, 134 F.4th
at 1006. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as to the district court’s ruling on that
claim, and otherwise affirm.
______________________________
1The Honorable Stephen H. Locher, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --