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”
How later courts described this case
- 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”
- 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”
- providing that “[i]t is not enough broadly to seek information that might impeach the defendants’ version of events,” but “must assert facts that, if true, would overcome the defense.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
RANDY ARZABALA,
Institutional ID No. 310666,
Plaintiff,
V. No. 5:21-CV-00268-H
LARRY SCOTT WEEMS, 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. 48.) 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 Michael Benson, G. Brian McNeill, Larry Scott Weems,
and Christopher Miller are ordered to file a motion for summary judgment with supporting
evidence on the issue of qualified immunity no later than March 31, 2023.! After the issue
| Defendants have each appeared in this case and asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. (See
Dkt. Nos. 37, 45.) The Court is mindful of the general rule that “a defendant's entitlement to qualified
immunity should be determined at the earliest possible stage of the litigation.” Ramirez v. Guadarrama, 3
F.4th 129, 133 (Sth Cir. 2021) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526-27 (1985)); Pearson v. Callahan, 555
U.S. 223, 231-32 (2009). Ordinarily, that comes at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Here, the defendants did not
file motions to dismiss before filing their answers. Thus, the Court has not yet had an opportunity to rule on
the immunity question. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b).
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). The qualified-immunity
summary-judgment motion, any response, and any reply 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 Carswell v. Camp, 54 F.4th 307, 311
(5th Cir. 2022); 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 (5th 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).
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).
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 Carswell, 54 F.4th at
311-12. Ona 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 Hutcheson v. Dallas Cnty, 994 F.3d 477, 481 (Sth Circ. 2021)
(providing that “[i]t is not enough broadly to seek information that might impeach the
defendants’ version of events,” but “must assert facts that, if true, would overcome the
defense.”); see also 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 motion 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’ motion 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 J anuary?_, 2023.
anal HENDRIX
United States District Judge