Williams v. Aaron

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

CHARLOTTE DIVISION

3:21-cv-90-GCM

ROBERT WILLIAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) ORDER

)

DANIEL HATLEY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

___________________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte.

The Plaintiff filed the Complaint pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, addressing

incidents that allegedly occurred at the Lanesboro Correctional Institution.1 [Doc. 1]. The

Complaint survived initial review on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Daniel Hatley violated

the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect him from being stabbed by other inmates.2 [Doc. 8].

Defendant Hatley filed an Answer in which he raised as affirmative defenses, inter alia, that

qualified immunity shields Defendant Hatley in his individual capacity (Second Defense), and

that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies (Fifth Defense). [Doc.

26]. Neither party filed a dispositive motion. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for a

judicial settlement conference, but the parties reached an impasse. The matter is now scheduled

for a jury trial beginning on Monday, January 22, 2024. The parties’ Joint Statement of Issue for

Trial includes the question: “Is Defendant entitled to qualified immunity regarding Plaintiff’s

1 Plaintiff is now represented by counsel.

2 The Complaint also passed initial review against a second Defendant who was dismissed from this action for lack

of service. [Doc. 24].

claim?” [Doc. 62]. Further, the Defendant notes in the Trial Brief that former counsel failed to

file a dispositive motion in this matter, “even though there were meritorious defense that could

have resulted in dismissal of this action without a trial.” [Docs. 68, 76]. The Defendant argues in

the Trial Brief that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly

established right, and that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by failing to

fairly raise the present claim in his prison grievance. [Doc. 68 at 3-8].

It appears that the Defendant has raised two affirmative defenses that present matters of

law for the Court’s consideration that would potentially preclude a trial in this matter. See

generally Wood v. Moss, 502 U.S. 744, 755 n.4 (2014) (the Supreme Court has repeatedly

“stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage [of the]

litigation”); Graham v. Gentry, 413 F. App’x 660, 663 (4th Cir. 2011) (“The [PLRA’s]

exhaustion requirement is mandatory, and courts lack the authority to waive [it].”) (citing Porter

v. Nussel, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002)). The Court determines that the most fair and expedient

means of considering these legal matters is to hear argument from the parties to determine

whether qualified immunity and/or lack of administrative exhaustion precludes a trial as a matter

of law.3 See Wadkins v. Arnold, 214 F.3d 535, 538 at n.4 (4th Cir. 2000) (recognizing that,

insofar as no material disputes of fact exist, whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity

is “solely a question of law”); Pritchett v. Alford, 973 F.2d 307, 312 (4th Cir. 1992) (the question

of whether a right is clearly established is a question of law for the court to decide).

The parties shall, therefore, be prepared to address qualified immunity and administrative

exhaustion on Monday, January 22, 2024, at 10:00, prior to jury selection in this case.

3 The Court may also consider accepting limited appropriate evidence, if necessary.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the parties shall be prepared to address

administrative exhaustion and qualified immunity prior to jury selection in this case on Monday,

January 22, 2024 at 10:00 AM.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: January 18, 2024

Lbal

Graham C. Mullen

United States District Judge et