Opinion
No. 2:01-CV-0417.
August 27, 2004
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
Before the Court are defendants' March 16, 2004 Motion to Stay Discovery and July 23, 2004, Supplemental Motion to Stay Discovery, as well as plaintiff's March 31, 2004 and August 19, 2004 responses, all filed in the above-referenced and numbered cause. By their motions, defendants point to their assertion of the defense of qualified immunity and their March 16, 2004 Rule 12(b) Motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for more definite statement, and argue that discovery should be stayed until the Court determines their entitlement to the claimed immunity.
By his first response, plaintiff states, for the first time, he did not know who was actually responsible for his harm when he filed suit but that, through discovery, he could find out who could reasonably be said to have caused the alleged constitutional violation. He further contends he could discover the identity of the JANE DOE defendant. Plaintiff argues that, with discovery, he could discover how most of the defendants were involved in the incidents underlying his complaint. By his response to defendants' supplemental motion, plaintiff contends the Court's Order to Answer constituted a judicial determination that he had stated a claim on which relief could be granted and that various Court documents have concluded that plaintiff, at most, states a claim of negligence. Plaintiff argues in both responses that he should be allowed full discovery on the merits of his claims before any determination of qualified immunity or ruling on defendants' amended motion to dismiss is made.
For over a year, the Court tried to get plaintiff to specify the defendants he was suing, without requiring their actual names. Plaintiff did not request discovery for that specific purpose or provide argument that specific discovery was needed to assist in the determination of any particular defendant. Instead, plaintiff indicated he was having difficulty ascertaining potential legal liability of the persons involved in the incident underlying his suit. As stated by plaintiff in his May 12, 2003, "Motion for Spical [sic] Statement to the Court," plaintiff was "trying to pinpoint these persons who are realy [sic] at fault for [his] injury and constitutional wrong. {he} just [didn't] know all the information of law to substitute any defendants at this time." Plaintiff said he was "studying the rules of law, trying to learn the formal."
In light of defendants' plea of qualified immunity and timely-filed motion to dismiss, discovery has not been conducted pending consideration of the motion. Qualified immunity constitutes an immunity from suit, not merely a defense to liability and gives officials the right to avoid discovery unless and until that defense has been overcome. "Even limited discovery on the issue of qualified immunity must not proceed until district court first finds that plaintiff's pleadings assert facts which, if true, would overcome defense of qualified immunity." Vander Zee v. Reno, 73 F.3d 1365 (5th Cir. 1996). As concluded in the Court's Report and Recommendation of August 6, 2004, plaintiff's pleadings do not assert facts which, if true, would overcome defendants' assertion of qualified immunity.
The Court's conclusions referenced by plaintiff that, at most, he has stated a claim of negligence do not benefit plaintiff's position as negligence will not support a claim under section 1983. Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993). Further, the Order to Answer did not constitute a judicial determination that plaintiff's remaining allegations were sufficient to withstand a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss. In any event, error, if any, in the analysis leading to issuance of the Order to Answer only benefitted plaintiff by allowing him to proceed further in his suit.
For the reasons set forth above, defendants' motions to stay discovery are GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.