From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wagner v. Jones

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Jan 22, 2015
CV 13-771 CG/WPL (D.N.M. Jan. 22, 2015)

Opinion

CV 13-771 CG/WPL

01-22-2015

ROBERT WAGNER, Plaintiff, v. LIEUTENANT JAMES JONES, WHITE SANDS MISSLE RANGE POLICE DEPARTMENT AKA WHITE SANDS MISSLE RANGE DIRECTORATE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES, Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

This matter is before me on James Jones's Motion To Stay Discovery. (Docs. 32-33.) Jones asks for a stay of all discovery until he has filed a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and the Court has ruled on the motion. Jones states that he will file the motion for summary judgment on or before February 21, 2015. (Doc. 33 at 2.) In the alternative, Jones asks that if I decline to stay all discovery, I instead enter a protective order limiting discovery to those issues necessary to address Jones's entitlement to qualified immunity. Wagner did not respond to the motion to stay. The failure of a party to respond to a motion constitutes consent to grant the motion. D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.1(b).

"The defense by a public official based on a claim of qualified immunity, if successful, protects the official both from liability as well as from the ordinary burdens of litigation, including far-ranging discovery." Workman v. Jordan, 958 F.2d 332, 335 (10th Cir. 1992) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-18 (1982)). Accordingly, "[d]iscovery should not be allowed until the court resolves the threshold question whether the law was clearly established at the time the allegedly unlawful action occurred." Id. at 336 (citing Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991)). The court must determine whether a reasonable person could have believed the defendant's alleged actions to be lawful; if so, the "defendant[] [is] entitled to dismissal before discovery." Id. If the qualified immunity issue is not resolved by a motion to dismiss, "discovery may be necessary before a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds can be resolved." Id. Any such discovery must be tailored specifically to the qualified immunity defense. Id. (citation omitted).

The Court denied Jones's motion to dismiss, which asserted lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (See Docs. 25-26, 30.) The motion to dismiss did not argue Jones's entitlement to qualified immunity. (See Docs. 25-26.) Upon the Court's denial of the motion to dismiss, I entered an Initial Scheduling Order. (Doc. 31.)

Because one of the purposes of qualified immunity is to protect officials from the burdens of discovery, and Wagner's failure to respond to the motion to stay constitutes consent to grant the motion, I hereby GRANT the motion to stay. Discovery is stayed until Jones's motion for summary judgment has been ruled on by the Court, unless the Court permits limited discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). Jones must file his motion for summary judgment on or before February 21, 2015, for the stay to remain in effect past that date. Furthermore, the Initial Scheduling Conference and associated deadlines are hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/_________

William P. Lynch

United States Magistrate Judge
A true copy of this order was served on the date of entry--via mail or electronic means--to counsel of record and any pro se party as they are shown on the Court's docket.


Summaries of

Wagner v. Jones

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Jan 22, 2015
CV 13-771 CG/WPL (D.N.M. Jan. 22, 2015)
Case details for

Wagner v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT WAGNER, Plaintiff, v. LIEUTENANT JAMES JONES, WHITE SANDS MISSLE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Date published: Jan 22, 2015

Citations

CV 13-771 CG/WPL (D.N.M. Jan. 22, 2015)