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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
OSCAR N. GARCIA, §
Institutional ID No. 01647430 §
§
Plaintiff, §
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-00133-C
CHANTAL A. FLORES, :
Defendant. :
ORDER
The United States Magistrate Judge entered her Report and Recommendation on
November 22, 2024, recommending that the Court enter a limited scheduling order, requiring
Defendant Chantal A. Flores to file a dispositive motion for the purpose of making a preliminary
determination on qualified immunity. (Doc. 43). No objections were filed.
The Court reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge for plain
error. Finding none, the Court ADOPTS the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court will enter the following limited
scheduling order for the purpose of promptly resolving the qualified-immunity issue.
1. Motion on Qualified Immunity
Defendant appeared in this case and asserted the affirmative defense of qualified
immunity in her answer to the complaint. (Doc. 34). The Court is mindful of the general rule
that “ta defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity should be determined at the earliest
possible stage of the litigation.” Ramirez v, Shia 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. But here, Defendant did
not file a motion to dismiss before she filed her answer; thus, the Court has not yet had an
opportunity to rule on the immunity question. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b).
As a result, the Court orders Defendant to file a motion for summary judgment with
supporting evidence on the issue of qualified immunity no later than January 31, 2025.!
Plaintiff may file a response to Defendant’s motion no later than 30 days from the date shown
on the certificate of service attached to the motion. The defendant’s motion, any response, and
any reply must comply with the requirements of the Local Civil Rules of this Court.
2 Discovery
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 vy. 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 y. 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.
' 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).
See Hutcheson v. Dallas Cnty, 994 F.3d 477, 481 (Sth 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 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).
The Court will, if necessary, enter a Rule 16 scheduling order once the qualified-
immunity issue is resolved.
SO ORDERED. f J
Dated December te, 2024. ng J 7 eater of
SA . CUMMINGS
Senior United States District Judge