Cyeef-Din v. Onken

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

ABDUL WAKIL CYEEF-DIN, and

QUAN TRAN,

Plaintiffs,

vs. 1:21-cv-00133-JFR-LF

NICHOLAS ONKEN, RIO RANCHO POLICE

DEPARTMENT LIEUTENANT; JAMES LA PORTE,

RIO RANCHO POLICE DEPARTMENT SERGEANT; AND

AARON BROWN, AARON BRICK, LANCE ROMERO,

BRIAN MARTINEZ, JONATHAN HICKERSON,

ARION HAYES, DYLAN GLENN, JASON FLEMING, AND

PATRICK ROBERSON, RIO RANCHO POLICE DEPARTMENT

OFFICERS,

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S OPPOSED MOTION FOR STAY

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ Opposed Motion for Stay, filed

on October 1, 2021. Doc. 29. Defendants ask the Court to stay discovery until the Court rules

on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Basis of Qualified Immunity and Other

Grounds (Doc. 28). Id. at 1. On October 28, 2021, plaintiffs filed Plaintiff’s [sic] Motion for

Discovery Under FED. R. CIV. PRO. 56(d) in Lieu of a Response to Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment [Doc. 28] and Motion to Stay Discovery [Doc. 29]. Doc. 31. In this

motion, plaintiffs asserted that they needed discovery in order to respond to the defendants’

motion for summary judgment. Id. On December 6, 2021, Judge Robbenhaar denied

plaintiffs’ motion. Doc. 35. Having reviewed the briefing, and the relevant law, the Court

finds that a general stay of discovery is appropriate based on defendants’ assertion of qualified

immunity.

It is well settled that a qualified immunity defense “protects the official both from

liability as well as from the ordinary burdens of litigation, including far-ranging discovery.”

Workman v. Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 335 (10th Cir. 1992) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S.

800, 817-18 (1982)). The Supreme Court repeatedly has emphasized the importance of

resolving the issue of qualified immunity early on in the litigation. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S.

372, 376 n.2 (2007) (citing Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991) (per curiam)). The

defense of qualified immunity does not create immunity from all discovery, but only from

“broad-reaching discovery,” and the Court recognizes that “limited discovery may sometimes be

necessary before the district court can resolve a motion for summary judgment based on

qualified immunity.” Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 593 n.14 (1998) (quotation

omitted).

Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity turns on whether his conduct

violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable official would

have been aware. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818; see also Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778

(2014) (reaffirming that officials acting in discretionary capacities are generally entitled to

qualified immunity unless their conduct violates clearly established law). Therefore, qualified

immunity depends on the objective reasonableness of the official’s conduct. Harlow, 457 U.S.

at 818. Standard practice in this District is to stay discovery—as to all defendants—when the

defense of qualified immunity has been raised. See Workman, 958 F.2d at 336; see also

Herrera v. Santa Fe Pub. Schs., No. CIV 11-0422 JB/KBM, 2012 WL 6846393, at *10 (D.N.M.

Dec. 20, 2012) (unpublished).

2

In their motion, plaintiffs offer no argument that a general stay of discovery should not

apply in this case. See Doc. 31. In addition, plaintiffs’ request for limited discovery pursuant

to Rule 56(d) has been denied. Doc. 35. The Court therefore grants defendants’ motion for a

general stay of discovery.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Opposed Motion for Stay (Doc. 29) is

GRANTED. All discovery in this case shall be stayed, pending resolution of Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment on the Basis of Qualified Immunity and Other Grounds (Doc.

28), or until further order of the Court.

haut Yh CO

ited States Magistrate Judge