Bates v. Rowe et al, No. 5:2022cv00102 - Document 49 (N.D. Tex. 2023)
Court Description: Order Accepting Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and Requiring a Motion on Qualified Immunity re: 36 Findings and Recommendations. After Defendants file their motion for summary judgment, the Court w ill 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' motion for summary judgment no later than 30 days from the date shown on the certificate of service attached to the motion for summary judgment. (Ordered by Judge James Wesley Hendrix on 6/27/2023) (bdg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bates v. Rowe et al Doc. 49 Case 5:22-cv-00102-H Document 49 Filed 06/27/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 229 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION KEVIN KELLY JOE BATES, Institutional ID N o, 2M27 9 3 Plaintiff, No.5:22-CV-00102-H SGT. JEREMY TIDWELL, eral., Defendants, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RNCOMMENDATION OF TIIE LINITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND RTOIIIRING A M OTION ON OUAIIFIED IMMUNITY 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 immuniry. (Dkt. No. 36.) 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. Accordingly, Defendants Davian Moore, Martin Rosas, and Jeremy Tidwell are ordered to file a motion for summary judgment with supporting evidence on the issue ol qualrfied immunrry no later than August 28,2023.t After the issue of qualified immuniry is I Defendants have each appeared in this case and asserted the affirmative defense ofqualified immunity. (See Dkt. Nos. 32, 33, 34.) The Court is mindful oF the general rule that "a defendant's entitlement to qualified immunity should be determined at the earliest possible stage ofthe litigation." Ramirezr. Gu.adarrama,3 F .4th 129, 133 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing Mitdtell r. Fors1th,472 U.S. 51 I , 526-27 (1985)), Pearsan v. Callahan, 555 U.5.223,231-32 (2009). Ordinarily, that comes at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Here, the dcfcndants did not file motions to dismiss belore lLling their answcrs. Thus, the Court has not yct had an opportunity to rule on thc immunity question. See Fed. R. Civ. P. l2(b). Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:22-cv-00102-H Document 49 Filed 06/27/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 230 resolved, an additional summary-judgment motion on any or all remaining issues may be hled if need be. Sae LR 56.2(b). The qualif,red-immunity summary-judgment motion, any response, and any reply must comply with the requirements of the Local Civil Rules of the Northern District of Texas. Discovery will remain stayed pending a ruling on the anticipated motion for summary judgment or further order from the Court. See Carswell v Camp,54 F.4th 307' 311 (5th Cn. 2022); Wicks v. Miss, State Emp't Serus., Inc ,41 F.3d 991,994-95 (5th Ci-r. 1995); also Backe v. LeBlanc,691 see F.3d 645,648 (5th Cir. 2012); Lion Boulos v. Wilson,834F.2d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1987); Webb r. Livingston,618F. App'x 201, 206 (sth Cir. 2015) (per curiam)' If a claim survives summary judgment on immunity glounds, then the parties are entitled to all appropriate discovery, even discovely that does not relate to the qualified immuniry defense. seeZantizy.seat,602F.App',x l54, l59 (5thCir.2015)(quoting LionBoulos,S34 F.2d at 507-08). When a delendant has asserted a qualified-immuniry defense, the Cou may, under certain ctcumstances, permit limited discovery that is narrowly tailored to uncover facts that the Court needs to rule on the qualiflled-immuniry defense. See Carswell,54 F 4th at 3i 1-12. On a proper requesr, the Court may authorize a plaintiffto conduct limited motion discovery in order to respond to the qualified-immunity issues raised in the expected for summary judgment. see Hutcheson y. Dallascnty,994F.3d477,48i (5th Cit.2021) (providing that ,,[i]t is not enough broadly to seek information that might impeach the the defendants, version ofevents," but "must assert facts that, iftrue, would overcome defense."); see also Backe,691 F.3d at 648 (explaining that "this court has established a ruling careful procedure under which a disffict court may defel its qualified immunity 2 if Case 5:22-cv-00102-H Document 49 Filed 06/27/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 231 further facrual development is necessary to asceftain the availabiliry ofthat defense"); Hinojom v. Lidngston,807 F.3d 657 , 670 (5th Cir. 2015) (providing that "a district court may elect the defer-and-discover approach'when the defendant's immunity claim turns at least partially on a factual question' that must be answered before a ruling can rssue"); cf. Nance v. *4 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2018) (finding Meeks,No.3:17-cv-1882-L-BN, 2018 WL 5624202, at that "a court's qualified immunity inquiry at [the summary judgment] stage requires that the Court'accept the plaintiffs version of the facts (to the extent reflected by proper summary judgment evidence) as true."') (q]uotrng Haggerty v. Tex. S. Univ',391F.3d 653, 655 (5th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted)), rec. accepted,2018 WL 5620469 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 30' 2018). After Defendants file their motion for summary judgment, the Court will issue an order setting forth procedures and deadlines for any possible Iequest for limited discovery related to the affirmative defense of qualified immuniry. Plaintiffmay file a response to Defendants' motion 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. Dated lune{2023. &) J U 3 S /L WESLEY HENDRIX ed 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.
