Salazar v. Unknown Police Dog Handler (K-9)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCK DIVISION

RYAN C. SALAZAR,

Institutional ID No. 2476330

Plaintiff,

Vv. No. 5:23-CV-00054-H

STEPHEN HASTINGS, et ai.,

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. 96. 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 Corporal Stephen Hastings, Sergeant Joshua Cisneros,

Sergeant Samuel Delarosa, Deputy Joseph Jaramillo, Cole Lidiak, Jordan Uptain, Tracey

Siegfried, Gregory Treharne, and Michael Macias are ordered to file motions for summary

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

November 18, 2024.' After the issue of qualified immunity is resolved, an additional

' Defendants have each appeared in this case and asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. See

Dkt. Nos, 72, 75, 78, 94. 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,

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 (Sth 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).

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).

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 (5th Cir. 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

3 F.4th 129, 133 (5th 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).

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”); 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 plaintiffs 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 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’ 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 September (7, 2024.

JAMES WESLEY HENDRIX

States District Judge