Kevin Danley v. Ruby Allen

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FILED

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MARCH 8, 2007

No. 06-14466 THOMAS K. KAHN

Non-Argument Calendar CLERK

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00680-CV-CV-IPJ

KEVIN DANLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RUBY ALLEN, et al.,

Defendants,

JACKIE RIKARD,

RONNIE WILLIS,

RUBY ALLYN,

Defendants-Appellants.

________________________

06-14808

Non-Argument Calendar

_________________________

D.C. Docket No. 06-00680-CV-3-IPJ

KEVIN DANLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STEVE WOODS,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

06-15580

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 06-00680-CV-IPJ

KEVIN DANLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JEFF WOOD,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

_________________________

(March 8, 2007)

2

Before HULL, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case, the district court summarily denied defendant-

appellants’ motions to dismiss plaintiff-appellee Kevin Danley’s second amended

complaint. Danley contends that he was subjected to excessive force and then

denied medical treatment when, as a pretrial detainee, detention officers sprayed

him with pepper spray. The defendant-appellants contend that they are entitled to

qualified immunity from Danley’s claims. The district court entered one-sentence

orders denying each of the various motions to dismiss. The district court’s one-

sentence orders perfunctorily stated that the district court had considered the

motions and was “of the opinion defendants’ motions are due to be denied.” The

orders are devoid of any facts and any legal analysis.

Many times, and in many contexts, this Court has admonished district courts

that their orders should contain sufficient explanations of their rulings so as to

provide this Court with an opportunity to engage in meaningful appellate review.

See Clay v. Equifax, Inc., 762 F.2d 952, 957-58 (11th Cir. 1985) (collecting cases

in which the Supreme Court and this Court’s predecessor Court “urged the district

court to state the reason for its decision and the underlying predicate”); see also

Serra Chevrolet, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 446 F.3d 1137, 1151 (11th Cir.

3

2006) (in imposing sanctions, district court must clearly state its reasons so that

meaningful review may be had on appeal); In re Ford Motor Co., 345 F.3d 1315,

1317 (11th Cir. 2003) (granting petition for writ of mandamus where district court

“provided no substantive explanation” for its discovery ruling); Broadwater v.

United States, 292 F.3d 1302, 1303 (11th Cir. 2002) (in view of size of record and

number of allegations, summary denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was

inappropriate).

In this case, we conclude that the district court’s one-sentence summary

denials of defendant-appellants’ motions to dismiss wholly fail to provide this

Court with an opportunity to conduct meaningful appellate review. While this

Court certainly could review the record and applicable case law and render a

reasoned decision on the qualified immunity issue, this is the responsibility of the

district court in the first instance. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s

orders denying the defendant-appellants’ motions to dismiss and remand the case

to the district court to consider the case in full and to enter reasoned orders which

discuss the facts alleged in the second amended complaint and detail the legal

analysis used by the district court to reach its conclusions regarding the motions to

dismiss.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

4