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”
How later courts described this case
- 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”
- 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”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
JAMES DORA,
Institutional ID No. 2367095,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 5:20-CV-00270-H
KELLY ROWE, 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, and a
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. 59.) The Magistrate Judge
also recommended that the Court grant Plaintiff's request (Dkt No. 50) and permit limited
discovery for the purpose of identifying a John Doe defendant for service. (/d.) 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.
Limited Discovery to Identify Doe Officer
First, the Court finds that limited discovery is warranted at this time to allow
Plaintiff an adequate opportunity to identify the Doe Officer to facilitate service of process
on his medical denial claim. As a result, Plaintiffs request for limited discovery (Dkt. No.
50) is granted. Defendants must produce the following within 30 days of the date of this
order:
1, Lubbock County duty rosters and other personnel records identifying any
LCDC employees who were working in or present near the cell where
Plaintiff alleges that the Doe Officer denied him medical treatment on
February 18, 2020.
2. The use-of-force report for the February 18, 2020 incident.
3. Any sick-call requests submitted by Plaintiff on February 18, 2020, and any
records of medical services offered to Plaintiff on February 18, 2020.
4. Any remaining video footage from the area where Plaintiff alleges the Doe
Officer denied him medical treatment on February 18, 2020.!
Plaintiff must, no later than May 23, 2022, identify the Doe Officer alleged to have
denied him medical treatment, and provide a location where the defendant may be served.
If Plaintiff cannot identify the Doe Officer, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's medical denial
claim against the Doe Officer without prejudice.
2. Motions on Qualified Immunity
Second, the remaining defendants who have already appeared? are each ordered to
file a motion for summary judgment with supporting evidence on the issue of qualified
immunity no later than May 23, 2022.2 The summary-judgment motion, any response, and
' The Court notes that Lubbock County filed a response to Plaintiff's motion, averring that the
facility security video from the relevant time and area was purged from the system some time before
November 19, 2020, and that no relevant video exists at this time. (Dkt. No. 51.)
* The defendants and claims subject to this order are (1) Officer Mauro Castillo for excessive force,
(2) Officer Selena Garcia for excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs,
(3) Sheriff Kelly Rowe for denial of visitation, reduced food portions, and mail tampering, and
(4) Officer Tracy Landeros for tampering with privileged mail. All of these defendants have been
served with process and have appeared.
3 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).
any reply must comply with the requirements of the Local Civil Rules of the Northern
District of Texas.
Except as noted above, 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 (5th 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 (Sth 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”); cf 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 March2¢ , 2022.
TAMES WESLEY HENDRIX
United States District Judge
/