Opinion
Case No. 02-4010-JAR
February 19, 2003
On January 10, 2003, Defendant David C. Seitter filed a Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. 37, 38). On January 16, Plaintiff filed a Rule 56(f) Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to the Defendant's motion (Doc. 40). According to Defendant Seitter, qualified judicial immunity is a ground for dismissal.
It is established law that the issue of qualified immunity should be resolved at the earliest possible stage of litigation. The rationale behind the doctrine is to prevent an immune defendant from having to go through trial and the burden of broad-reaching discovery because it is an immunity from suit, rather than merely a defense to liability. The defense should be addressed prior to any further discovery, including deposition of the defendant. Therefore, the Court will address Defendant Seitter's Motion to Dismiss, or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of qualified judicial immunity after considering Plaintiff's response. Plaintiff's Rule 56(f) Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to the defendant's motion is denied.
E.g., Crawford-El v. Britton, 118 S.Ct. 1584, 1597 (1998); Holland v. Harrington, 268 F.3d 1179, 1185 (10th Cir. 2001); see Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 (1982) (holding that until the threshold question of immunity is addressed by an objective standard, discovery should not be allowed).
Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818; Holland, 268 F.3d at 1185.
Id.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or, in the alternative, Summary Judgment on or before March 14, 2003.
IT IS SO ORDERED.