Hill v. Rowe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCK DIVISION

DEANGIILO HILL,

Institutional ID No. 208939

Plaintiff,

v. No. 5:21-CV-00007-H

KELLY ROWE,

Defendant.

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, and a

recommendation (FCR) that this Court enter a limited scheduling order, requiring

Defendant Kelly Rowe to file a motion for summary judgment with supporting evidence,

for the purpose of making a preliminary determination on qualified immunity. (Dkt. No.

23.) 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.

In his Answer, Defendant Rowe asserted several affirmative defenses, including the

defense of qualified immunity. (See Dkt. No. 21.) As soon as a defendant invokes an

entitlement to qualified immunity, “the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate the

inapplicability of the defense.” McClendon v. City of Columbia, 305 F.3d 314, 323 (Sth Cir.

2002) (en banc) (per curiam); see also Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991) (noting that

“we repeatedly have stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest

possible stage in litigation”); Harris v. Serpas, 745 F.3d 767, 771 (Sth Cir. 2014) (“Once the

defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, ‘the burden shifts to the plaintiff to rebut

this defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly

established law.’” (quoting Brumfield v. Hollins, 551 F.3d 322, 326 (Sth Cir. 2008))); Shaw v.

Villanueva, 918 F.3d 414, 416-17 (5th Cir. 2019) (“When a defendant asserts qualified

immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of pleading facts that demonstrate liability and

defeat immunity.” (citations omitted)).

To promote the efficient determination of the qualified-immunity issues, the Court

will decide the question of qualified immunity by way of a motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, Defendant Rowe is ordered to file a motion for summary judgment with

supporting evidence on the issue of qualified immunity no later than March 5, 2022.' The

summary- judgment motion, any response, and any reply must comply with the

requirements of the Local Civil Rules of the Northern District of Texas.

All discovery is 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 (5th Cir. 1987); Webb v. Livingston, 618 F. App’x 201, 206

(5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). If a 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 (Sth Cir. 2015)

(quoting Lion Boulos, 834 F.2d at 507-08).

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).

When 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 (“[T]his 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) (“[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.” (quoting Lion Boulos, 834 F.2d at

507)); of Nance v. Meeks, No. 3:17-cv-1882-L-BN, 2018 WL 5624202, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Aug.

1, 2018) (“[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

(5th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted)), rec. accepted, 2018 WL 5620469 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 30,

2018).

After defendant files his motion for summary judgment, the Court will issue a further

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 by no

later than 30 days from the date shown on the certificate of service attached to the motion

for summary judgment.

So ordered.

Dated January 4, 2022.

JAMES WESLEY HENDRIX

United States District Judge