Lamas v. Hale County

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCK DIVISION

ZACHERY RENE LAMAS,

Institutional ID No. 15648,

Plaintiff,

V. No. 5:20-CV-00216-H

DIANE GONZALES, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AND REQUIRING A MOTION ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, anda

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. 31.) 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 Gonzales and Velez are each ordered to file a motion for

summary judgment with supporting evidence on the issue of qualified immunity no later

than December 14, 2021.! The summary-judgment motion, any response, and any reply

| 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. See LR 56.2(b).

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 Wicks v. Miss. State Emp't Servs.,

Inc., 41 F.3d 991, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Backe v. LeBlanc, 691 F.3d 645, 648 (Sth

Cir. 2012); Lion Boulos v. Wilson, 834 F.2d 504, 507 (Sth Cir. 1987); Webb v. Livingston, 618

F. App’x 201, 206 (Sth Cir. 2015) (per curiam). 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. See Zantiz v. Seal, 602 F. App’x 154,

159 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Lion Boulos, 834 F.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, 41 F.3d at 994.

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 of that defense”);

Hinojosa v. Livingston, 807 F.3d 657, 670 (Sth 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 issue”); of Nance v.

Meeks, No. 3:17-cv-1882-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 requires that the

Court ‘accept the plaintiff's version of the facts (to the extent reflected by proper summary

judgment evidence) as true.’” (quoting Haggerty v. Tex. S. Univ., 391 F.3d 653, 655 (Sth Cir.

2004) (citations omitted)), rec. accepted, 2018 WL 5620469 (N.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.

Dated October /§, 2021.

□□

UnitedStates District Judge