Summary
holding that the trooper defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity when he used a taser in August of 2008 on the plaintiff who was in the presence of flammable material, creating a risk of physical harm to plaintiff such that a reasonable government official facing those circumstances would have known that his conduct violated federal law
Summary of this case from Estep v. MackeyOpinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 10-3374
05-25-2012
ALLEN BROWN, Plaintiff, v. TROOPER BURGHART, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 25th day of May, 2012, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 8), Defendants' Motion in Limine (Docket No. 11) and all responses and replies thereto (Docket Nos. 9, 12, 13, 14, 18, 20, 21, 22) and following oral argument on the motions on March 8, 2012, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' Motion in Limine (Docket No. 11) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as outlined in the Memorandum accompanying this Order;
2. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 8) is DENIED as to Defendant Trooper Burghart;
3. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 8) is DENIED without prejudice as to Defendant Trooper LeMaire. No later than 14 days from the date of this Order, the parties shall jointly submit via letter to Chambers either a proposed briefing schedule for a renewed motion for summary judgment, a motion for leave to amend the complaint, or both; or a joint stipulation clarifying Trooper LeMaire's status in this case.
BY THE COURT:
_________________
GENE E.K. PRATTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE