Daugherty v. Hurst

Filing 93

Order GRANTING 91 MOTION to Stay Proceedings and Brief in Support filed by University of South Alabama Medical Center. 92 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time filed by City Of Mobile is MOOT. Parties are ORDERED to file FRCP 26(f) Report within twenty-one days of Court's final ruling on 89 Motion to Dismiss as set out. Signed by Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady on 08/14/2018. (srd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SHUNTA DAUGHERTY, individually, :
and as the administrator of the estate :
of Michael Dashawn Moore,
:
Plaintiff,
vs.

:
: Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00072-CG-C

HAROLD HURST, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
ORDER

The Court has referred Defendant University of South Alabama
Medical Center’s (“USAMC”) Consolidated Motion to Stay Proceedings and
Brief in Support (“motion to stay”), (Doc. 91), to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge for appropriate action under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rule 72, Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “FRCP” followed by the Rule number);
and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a). Defendant USAMC motions the Court to stay the
proceedings in this matter until the Court rules on Defendant USAMC’s
pending Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 89), in which it asserts sovereign immunity
pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment and section 14 of the Constitution of
Alabama.
On July 23, 2018, the Court ordered the parties to file a report,
pursuant to Rule 26(f), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter, “FRCP”
followed by the Rule number), by August 17, 2018. (Doc. 83). Defendant

USAMC filed its Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 89), and instant motion to stay,
(Doc. 91), on August 3, 2018. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in
Howe v. City of Enterprise, 861 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam), that
requiring parties to an action to confer and submit an FRCP 26(f) report
before a district court has ruled on a defense of immunity is inconsistent with
the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Bouchard Transportation Co. v. Florida
Department of Environmental Protection,1 91 F.3d 1445 (11th Cir. 1996) (per
curiam), “and other decisions which establish that immunity is a right not to
be subjected to litigation beyond the point at which immunity is asserted.
Howe, 861 F.3d at 1302.

1

The nature and purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity suggest
that it is a threshold issue. While the Supreme Court has held that
the Eleventh Amendment is not jurisdictional in the sense that courts
must address the issue sua sponte, Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S.
496, 515 n.19, 102 S. Ct. 2557, 2567-68 n.19, 73 L. Ed. 2d 172 (1982),
the Court has held that Eleventh Amendment immunity is in the
nature of a jurisdictional bar. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 67778, 94 S. Ct. 1347, 1362-63, 39 L. Ed. 2d 662 (1974) (holding that
Eleventh Amendment immunity may be raised for the first time on
appeal). The fact that Eleventh Amendment immunity, like qualified
immunity, is a right to be free from the burdens of litigation also
suggests that it should be decided at an early stage. See Puerto Rico[
Aqueduct & SewerAuth. V. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.], 506 U.S. [139,] 14344, 113 S. Ct. [684,] 687[, 121 L. Ed. 2d 605 (1993)] (citing Mitchell[
v.Forsyth], 472 U.S. [511,] 526, 105 S. Ct. [2806,] 2815[, 86 L. Ed. 2d
411 (1985)]). Finally, the Eleventh Amendment is a recognition that
the states retain certain attributes of sovereignty, and one of its
purposes is to protect states from the indignity of being haled into
federal court by private litigants. Puerto Rico, 506 U.S. at 146, 113 S.
Ct. at 689. This purpose is not served when a ruling on Eleventh
Amendment immunity is unnecessarily postponed.

Bouchard Transp. Co., 91 F.3d at 1448-49.

2

Accordingly, Defendant USAMC’s motion to stay, (Doc. 91), is hereby
GRANTED and this matter is STAYED. The parties are ORDERED to file
their FRCP 26(f) report within twenty-one days (21) of the Court’s final
ruling on Defendant USAMC’s motion to dismiss, (Doc. 89). Consequently,
Defendant City of Mobile, Alabama’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of
Time, (Doc. 92), in which it motions the Court to extend the time to file its
FRCP 26(f) Report, is MOOT.
DONE and ORDERED this the 14th day of August 2018.
s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3