Smith v. East et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that defendant's 18 MOTION to Strike is GRANTED; that plaintiff's 25 MOTION to Open Discovery is DENIED. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 5/29/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(cc, )
IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION S T E V E N SMITH, P la in tif f , v. O F F IC E R EAST, D e f e n d a n t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CASE NO. 2:09-cv-193-MEF
M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER T h is cause is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Strike (Doc. # 18) filed o n April 21, 2009. In his motion, the named defendant, Officer East ("East") moves to s trik e the fictitious defendant described in the Amended Complaint as "Officer A." In re s p o n s e , Plaintiff filed a Motion to Open Discovery (Doc. #25) on April 25, 2009 so that h e could ascertain Officer A's identity. Also before the Court is Defendant's Motion to D is m iss (Doc. #15) filed on April 21, 2009, in which East contends that he is entitled to q u a lif ie d immunity from Plaintiff's claims. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the C o u rt will discuss Plaintiff's Motion to Open Discovery and Defendant's Motion to S trik e . P la in tif f 's Motion to Open Discovery In federal courts, qualified immunity is "an immunity from suit rather than a mere d e f e n s e to liability." Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (emphasis in o rig in a l). The purpose of immunity is to "avoid subject[ing] government officials either
to the costs of trial or to the burdens of broad-reaching discovery." Id. The Eleventh C irc u it has also recognized the importance of preventing discovery in cases where a d e f e n d a n t asserts qualified immunity. See Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1357 (11th C ir. 2003) (stating that a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to a stayed d is c o v e ry until resolution of the defense). In his motion, Plaintiff asks the Court for leave to conduct limited discovery to d e te rm in e the identity of Officer A. Plaintiff acknowledges that fictitious party pleading is not allowed in federal court but argues that "Plaintiff has precisely described Officer A w ith all but his/her name and that name may be easily ascertained through limited d is c o v e ry." (Doc. # 28, pg. 3). East contends that Plaintiff's motion is unsupported by E le v e n th Circuit case law, which does not allow discovery until resolution of the d e f e n d a n t's qualified immunity defense. The Court agrees that Plaintiff may not conduct d is c o v e ry even for the limited purpose of discovering Officer A's identity because East h a s asserted a qualified immunity defense. Consequently, he is entitled to a ruling on that a s s e rtio n of immunity from suit prior to having to participate in discovery in this case. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Open Discovery (Doc. # 25) is due to be DENIED. D e f e n d a n t's Motion to Strike In Defendant's Motion to Strike, East moves to strike the fictitious defendant d e s c rib e d in the Amended Complaint as "Officer A." There is no fictitious party practice in federal courts. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a); New v. Sports & Recreation, Inc., 114 F .3 d 1092, 1094 n.1 (11th Cir. 1997); Harris v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., 198 F. Supp.
2d 1303, 1304 n.6 (M.D. Ala. 2002); Edwards v. Alabama Dep't of Corr., 81 F. Supp. 2d 1 2 4 2 , 1257 (M.D. Ala. 2000). Therefore, Defendant's Motion to Strike (Doc. #18) is due to be GRANTED. C o n c lu s io n It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Strike (Doc. # 18) is GRANTED and P la in tif f Motion to Open Discovery (Doc. #25) is DENIED. D O N E this the 29th day of May, 2009. /s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?