Opinion
Civil Action 2:17-cv-123-TBM-MTP
01-07-2022
GABINO RAMOS HERNANDEZ PLAINTIFF v. PHILLIP CAUSEY and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEFENDANTS
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
TAYLOR B. MCNEEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On June 18, 2021, Defendant Phillip Causey filed a Motion for Reconsideration [102] of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order [89] denying his Motion for Summary Judgment. In its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court found that Hernandez' Bivens claim against Causey is the kind of Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure case that courts have adjudicated through Bivens actions. After determining that Hernandez' Bivens claim did not present a “new context, ” the Court found a genuine issue of material fact as to where Hernandez' hands were positioned at the time of the shooting and denied Causey's Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Causey subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration asking this Court to dismiss Plaintiff's Bivens claim against Causey pursuant to a recent Fifth Circuit decision: Byrd v. Lamb, 990 F.3d 879 (5th Cir. 2021). In his Motion, Causey asserts that in Byrd, the Fifth Circuit clarified that a Bivens action could not lie in an excessive force claim that presented a new context from the only Fourth Amendment claim that has been approved by the Supreme Court.
Since the hearing on this matter on August 12, 2021, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari in Egbert v. Boule, 142 S.Ct. 457 (2021), a Ninth Circuit case finding a Fourth Amendment Bivens action against a Border Patrol agent. The Court certified two questions on appeal, including whether a cause of action exists under Bivens for claims against federal officers engaged in immigration-related functions for allegedly violating a plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari on November 5, 2021, and oral argument is set for March 2, 2022.
With the question presented in Causey's Motion for Reconsideration being so closely aligned with the issue before the Supreme Court, and with the Court's broad discretion to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, the Court believes that it would be a waste of judicial resources to address Causey's Motion before the Supreme Court's ruling in Egbert v. Boule. Causey's Motion for Reconsideration is therefore denied without prejudice. Causey may reurge his Motion, if so desired, following the conclusion of the appeal in Egbert v. Boule.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Causey's Motion for Reconsideration [102] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.