Miller-Cunningham v. MacAllister et al

Filing 16

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the motion for relief from the MIDP order (Doc. 15 ) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant MacAllister must answer by the deadline the answer was originally due, or by August 25, 2017, whichever is later [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 8/23/17.(MAW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Garrett Miller-Cunningham,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-02098-PHX-JAT

Michael MacAllister, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion (Doc. 15) for relief from the

16

MIDP order (Doc. 4). In that motion, counsel states “Defendants have filed a motions

17

[sic] to dismiss based on qualified immunity.” (Doc. 15 at 1). In reality, one Defendant,

18

Michael MacAllister, has filed a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The

19

other Defendant, Pinal County, has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

20

The MIDP order makes clear that motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are

21

not a basis to not answer or not proceed with the mandatory discovery. (Doc. 4 at 5).

22

Therefore, discovery must proceed consistent with the MIDP order as to Defendant Pinal

23

County.1

24

As to Defendant Michael MacAllister, the Court has the discretion to defer the

25

time to answer and to begin discovery because Defendant MacAllister has filed a motion

26

to dismiss based on qualified immunity. (Doc. 4 at 5 (“The Court may defer the time for

27
28

1

Pinal County seemingly has acknowledged this, as it answered in addition to
filing a motion to dismiss.

1

filing such pleadings, for good cause, while it considers a motion to dismiss based on

2

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, or

3

absolute or qualified immunity of a public official.”)). Preliminary, the Court rejects

4

Defendants’ implied argument that the MIDP order allows this Court to delay mandatory

5

discovery as to ALL Defendants (including answering Defendants) if any ONE

6

Defendant files a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.

7

Further, the Court declines to delay the filing of an answer, which then triggers

8

compliance with the mandatory discovery, in this case. As noted above, the parties must

9

comply with the MIDP order with respect to Defendant Pinal County; therefore, the

10

Court does not see any efficiency in delaying discovery surrounding the same incident as

11

to Defendant MacAllister. Thus, the Court finds no good cause to delay the time to

12

answer. Accordingly,

13
14
15
16
17

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for relief from the MIDP order (Doc. 15) is
denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant MacAllister must answer by the
deadline the answer was originally due, or by August 25, 2017, whichever is later.
Dated this 23rd day of August, 2017.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-