Ellis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

ALLISON ELLIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:25-cv-745-HDM

CITY OF HUNTSVILLE,

ALABAMA, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Allison Ellis is suing her former employer, the City of Huntsville, Alabama

(the “City”), and her former supervisor, Lt. Michael Danley. (Doc. 1 at 1, 3). She

alleges that Defendants used religious discrimination to force her out of her job in

retaliation for taking maternity leave and reporting sex discrimination. (Doc. 1 at

15–22). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, (doc. 10), arguing that, among other

things, Lt. Danley is entitled to qualified immunity, (see doc. 11). This court denied

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. 16). Lt. Danley filed an interlocutory appeal

of this court’s denial of qualified immunity, (doc. 19), and Lt. Danley and the City

subsequently moved this court to stay all proceedings pending resolution of the

appeal, (doc. 23). Ms. Ellis opposes a full stay and instead advocates for a partial

stay. (See Docs. 23, 26). Ms. Ellis acknowledges that under Eleventh Circuit

precedent, the individual appealing a denial of qualified immunity is entitled to a

stay on issues related to that appeal. (See Doc. 26 at 1–2). See also Blinco v. Green

Tree Servicing, LLC, 366 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2004) (explaining that the

defense of qualified immunity “protects government officials not only from having

to stand trial, but from having to bear the burdens attendant to litigation, including

pretrial discovery”). Ms. Ellis also does not advocate for full discovery to proceed

against the City but instead asks to proceed only with “paper discovery, i.e.,

Interrogatories, Requests for Production and Requests for Admission,” against the

City. (Doc. 26 at 2). Therefore, the only issue before the court is the extent to which

proceedings against the City should be stayed.

The parties make several competing arguments. First, Defendants argue that

“the claims against the City and Danley are so overlapping that allowing discovery

against the City during the pendency of Danley’s appeal would be tantamount to

denying Danley his qualified immunity from suit. Particularly[] as . . . Danley will

be the primary witness in this matter.” (Doc. 23 at 3–4). Second, Defendants argue

that a stay would preserve judicial and party resources and avoid piecemeal

litigation. Id. As to Ms. Ellis, she first argues that allowing a full stay would “unduly

prejudice Plaintiff and [delay] resolution of this case for an additional year.” (Doc.

26 at 4). Second, Ms. Ellis argues that allowing a full stay would be an unjust

acquiescence to Defendants’ delay tactics. Id.

Although Ms. Ellis argues that a full stay would unduly prejudice her case,

she provides no concrete example of how such prejudice would occur. While her

broader concern that qualified-immunity appeals are frequently used to delay

litigation is well taken, she has not demonstrated that a stay pending appeal would

result in the loss of evidence, the unavailability of witnesses, or any other specific

harm to her ability to litigate this case. Cf. K.M. v. Alabama Dep’t of Youth Servs.,

209 F.R.D. 493, 496 (M.D. Ala. 2002), aff’d sub nom. K.M. v. AL Dep’t of Youth

Servs., 73 F. App’x 386 (11th Cir. 2003) (allowing limited discovery to move

forward where a full stay would result in a loss of records or witnesses).

Moreover, the claims against Lt. Danley and the City are closely related, and

there is no ascertainable line between the discovery relevant to the claims against

the City and that relevant to the claims against Lt. Danley. Allowing discovery to

proceed against the City while staying discovery as to Lt. Danley would therefore

create substantial practical difficulties. Furthermore, it is unclear at this stage which

claims, if any, will remain viable if Lt. Danley were granted qualified immunity. In

the absence of a concrete showing of prejudice to Ms. Ellis, there is little reason to

subject the parties and the court to these complications. See Sosa v. Hames, No. 05-

23079-CIV-TURNOFF, 2006 WL 1284927, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 3, 2006) (staying

claims as to both the individual defendant and the county defendant after the

individual defendant appealed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity

because the claims against the individual defendant were “inextricably linked” to the

claims against the county defendant); Frye v. Escambia Cnty. Bd. of Educ., No.

CIV.A. 08-0340-WS-N, 2010 WL 2854454, at *1 (S.D. Ala. July 16, 2010) (staying

claims against both individual defendants and the school board because a ruling in

the plaintiff's favor on appeal “presumably would also be dispositive of the

plaintiffs claim against the Board”).

For these reasons, Defendants’ motion to stay, (doc. 23), is GRANTED. All

deadlines and proceedings are hereby STAYED pending resolution of Lt. Danley’s

interlocutory appeal.

DONE and ORDERED on March 9, 2026.

(AOA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE