STORM ERIE v. NANCY HUNTER (2021)

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Stay and Continue Scheduling Conference. (R. Doc. 9). The deadline for filing an opposition has not expired. LR 7(f).

Storm Erie (“Plaintiff”) has sued Nancy Hunter (“Defendant”), a psychiatric aide at the Eastern Louisiana Mental Health System, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution by forcing him to attend a religious service. (R. Doc. 1).

On August 2, 2021, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss asserting that she is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity with respect to those claims made against her in her individual capacity. (R. Doc. 8). Defendant subsequently filed the instant motion seeking a stay of discovery, and continuation of the deadlines in the Court's Scheduling Conference Order (R. Docs. 3, 7), in light of her qualified immunity defense. (R. Doc. 9).

“Trial courts possess broad discretion to supervise discovery.” Landry v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l AFL-CIO, 901 F.2d 404, 436 n.114 (5th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). “A trial court has broad discretion and inherent power to stay discovery until preliminary questions that may dispose of the case are determined.” Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir. 1987).

The qualified immunity defense affords government officials not just immunity from liability, but immunity from suit.” Vander Zee v. Reno, 73 F.3d 1365, 1368 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525-26 (1985)). Qualified immunity shields government officials from individual liability for performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

“One of the most salient benefits of qualified immunity is protection from pretrial discovery, which is costly, time-consuming, and intrusive[.]” Backe v. LeBlanc, 691 F.3d 645, 648 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Helton v. Clements, 787 F.2d 1016, 1017 (5th Cir. 1986)). Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit “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.” Backe, 691 F.3d at 648. Under this procedure, “a district court must first find ‘that the plaintiff's pleadings assert facts which, if true, would overcome the defense of qualified immunity.’ ” Id. (citing Wicks v. Miss. State Emp't Servs., 41 F.3d 991, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1995); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (directing that a plaintiff must “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face”—excluding statements that are “no more than conclusions” which are “not entitled to the assumption of truth”)). “Thus, a plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must plead specific facts that both allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the harm he has alleged and that defeat a qualified immunity defense with equal specificity.” Backe, 691 F.3d at 648. “After the district court finds a plaintiff has so pled, if the court remains ‘unable to rule on the immunity defense without further clarification of the facts,’ it may issue a discovery order ‘narrowly tailored to uncover only those facts needed to rule on the immunity claim.’ ” Id. (citing Lion Boulos v. Wilson, 834 F.2d 504, 507-08 (5th Cir. 1987)).

Having reviewed the record, the Court finds it appropriate to stay discovery until resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss. Discovery is inappropriate until the district judge has determined that the Complaint asserts facts which, if true, would overcome the defense of qualified immunity raised by the Defendant. See Backe, 691 F.3d at 648.

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Stay and Continue Scheduling Conference. (R. Doc. 9) is GRANTED. Discovery is STAYED in this action, and the deadlines in the Court's Scheduling Conference Order (R. Docs. 3, 7) are CONTINUED, until the resolution of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 8). Should a ruling be issued on the Motion to Dismiss, counsel shall immediately contact the undersigned so that appropriate action may be taken.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on August 16, 2021.

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE