# Lamas v. Hale County

> District Court, N.D. Texas · October 15, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10450620

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Texas
- **Decided:** October 15, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10450620

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10450620. Public record. Not legal advice.