Dora v. Rowe et al, No. 5:2020cv00270 - Document 63 (N.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND REQUIRING A MOTION ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: First, the Court finds that limited discovery is warranted at this time to allow Plaintiff an adequate opp ortunity to identify the Doe Officer to facilitate service of process on his medical denial claim. As a result, Plaintiff's request for limited discovery (Dkt. No. 50) is granted. Defendants must produce the following within 30 days of the da te of this order: 1. Lubbock County duty rosters and other personnel records identifying any LCDC employees who were working in or present near the cell where Plaintiff alleges that the Doe Officer denied him medical treatment on February 18, 202 0. 2. The use-of-force report for the February 18, 2020 incident. 3. Any sick-call requests submitted by Plaintiff on February 18, 2020, and any records of medical services offered to Plaintiff on February 18, 2020. 4. Any remaining video foo tage from the area where Plaintiff alleges the Doe Officer denied him medical treatment on February 18, 2020. Plaintiff must, no later than May 23, 2022, identify the Doe Officer alleged to have denied him medical treatment, and provide a location where the defendant may be served. If Plaintiff cannot identify the Doe Officer, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's medical denial claim against the Doe Officer without prejudice. Second, the remaining defendants who have already appeared are each ordered to file a motion for summary judgment with supporting evidence on the issue of qualified immunity no later than May 23, 2022. The summary-judgment motion, any response, and any reply must comply with the requirements of the Loc al Civil Rules of the Northern District of Texas. After Defendants file their motions for summary judgment, the Court will issue an order setting forth procedures and deadlines for any possible request for limited discovery related to the affirmati ve defense of qualified immunity. Plaintiff may file a response to Defendants' motions for summary judgment no later than 30 days from the date shown on the certificate of service attached to the motion for summary judgment. re: 59 Findings and Recommendations, Order Reassigning Case (Ordered by Judge James Wesley Hendrix on 3/24/2022) (lkw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dora v. Rowe et al Doc. 63 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCKDIVISION JAMES DORA, Institutional ID No. 2367095, Plaintiff, No. 5:20-CV-00270-H KELLY ROWE, s/al, Defendants ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF TIIE IINITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND RIOUIRIN G AMOTION ON OUAIIFIE D IMMLINITY The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation (FCR) that this court enter a limited scheduling order requiring the remaining defendants to file a motion for summary judgment for the purpose of making a preliminary determination on qualified immunity. (Dkt. No. 59.) The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the Court glant Plaintiff s request (Dkt No. 50) and permit limited discovery for the purpose of identiffing a John Doe defendant for service. (1d) No objections were filed. The District Court has reviewed the FCR for plain error. Finding none, the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. l. Limite d Discovery to Identifr Doe Officer Ftst, the Court finds that limited discovery is warranted at this time to allow plaintiff an adequate oppornrnity to identiff the Doe Officer to facilitate service of process (Dkt. No, on his medical denial claim. As a result, Plaintiffs Iequest for limited discovery Dockets.Justia.com 50) is granted. Defendants must produce the following within 30 days of the date of this order: I Lubbock County duty rosters and other personnel records identifi,ing any LCDC employees who were workiag in or present near the cell where Plaintiff alleges that the Doe Officer denied him medical treatment on February 18,2020. 2. The use-ofl-force report for the February 18,2020 incident. 3. Any sick-call requests submiued by Plaintiff on February 18, 2020, and any records of medical services offered to Plainffion February 18,2020. 4. Any remaining video footage Iiom the area where Plaintiff alleges the Doe Officer denied him medical treatment on February 18,2020.1 Plaintiffmust, no later than May 23,2022, identifu the Doe Officer alleged to have denied him medical fteaffnent, and provide a location where the defendant may be served. If Plaintiff cannot identifir the Doe Officer, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs medical denial claim against the Doe Officer without prejudice. 2. Motions on QualiEed Tmmunity Second, the remaining defendants who have aheady appeared2 are each ordered to file a motion for summary judgment with supporting evidence on the issue of qualified immunity no later thanMay 23,2022.3 T}re summary-judgment motion, any response, and I The Court notes that Lubbock County filed a response to Plaintills motion, averring that the facility security video from the relevant time and area was purged from the system some time before November 19,2020, and that no relevant video exists at this time. (Dkt.No.51.) '?The defendants and claims subject to this order are (1) Offrcer Mauro Castillo for excessive force, (2) Offrcer Selena Garcia for excessive force and deliberate rndifference to serious medical needs, (3) SheriffKelly Rowe for denial of visitation, reduced food portions, and mail tampering, and (4) Ofiicer Trary Landeros for tamperhg with privileged mail. Al1 of these defendants have been served with process and have appeared. 3 After the issue of qualified immunity is resolved, an additional summary-judgment motion on any or all remaining issues may be filed if need be. SeeLF.56.2@). 2 any reply must comply with the requirements of the Local Civil Rules of the Northem District of Texas. Except as noted above, discovery will remain stayed pending a ruling on the anticipated motion for summary judgment or further order fiom the Court. See Wicks v. Miss. Stare Emp't Serus., Inc.,41 F.3d 991,99+-95 (5th Cir. 7995); see aln 691 F.3d645,648 (5thCir.2012);LionBoulosv.Wilson,834F.2d504,507 Webb v. Livingston,613F. App'x 201, 206 (sth Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Backe v. LeBlanc, (5thCir. 1987); Ifa claim survives summary judgment on immunity grounds, then the parties are entitled to all appropriate discovery, even discovery that does not relate to the qualified immunity defense. v. Seal, 602 F. See Zantiz App'x 154, 159 (sth Cir. 2015) (quoting Zion Boulos,834F.2d at 507-08). Where a defendant has asserted a qualified-immunity defense, the Court may, under certain circumstances, permit limited discovery that is narrowly tailored to uncover facts that the Court needs to rule on the qualified-immunity defense. See Wicks,41F.3d at994. On a proper request, the Court may authorize a plaintiff to conduct limited discovery in order to respond to the qualified-immunity issues raised in the expected motion for summary judgment. See Backe,691 F.3d at 648 (explaining that "this court has established a careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further factual development is necessary to ascertain the availability ofthat defense"); Hinojosa v. Liringston,80T F.3d 657,670 (5th Cir. 2015) (providin g that "a district court may elect the defer-and-discover approach 'when the defendant's immunity claim tums at least partially on a factual question' that must be answered before a ruling can issue"); cf Nance t Meeks,No.3:77-an-7882-L-BN, 2018 WL 5624202, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2018) (finding that "a court's qualified immunity inquiry at [the summary judgment] stage requ es that the 3 Court'accept the plaintiffs version of the facts (to the extent reflected by proper summary judgment evidence) as true. "' (quoing Haggerty v. Tex. S. Univ., 39l F.3d 653, 655 (5th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted)), rec. accepted,2018 WL 5620469 (l\tr.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2018). After Defendants file their motions for summary judgment, the Court will issue an order setting forth procedures and deadlines for any possible request for limited discovery related to the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Plaintiff may file a response to Defendants' motions for summary judgment no later than 30 days from the date shown on the certificate of service attached to the motion for summary judgment. So ordered. DaredMarc}/Jt.,2022. J U 4 WESLEY HENDRIX d States District Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
