Miller-Cunningham v. MacAllister et al
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Michael MacAllister, et al.,
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion (Doc. 15) for relief from the
MIDP order (Doc. 4). In that motion, counsel states “Defendants have filed a motions
[sic] to dismiss based on qualified immunity.” (Doc. 15 at 1). In reality, one Defendant,
Michael MacAllister, has filed a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The
other Defendant, Pinal County, has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The MIDP order makes clear that motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are
not a basis to not answer or not proceed with the mandatory discovery. (Doc. 4 at 5).
Therefore, discovery must proceed consistent with the MIDP order as to Defendant Pinal
As to Defendant Michael MacAllister, the Court has the discretion to defer the
time to answer and to begin discovery because Defendant MacAllister has filed a motion
to dismiss based on qualified immunity. (Doc. 4 at 5 (“The Court may defer the time for
Pinal County seemingly has acknowledged this, as it answered in addition to
filing a motion to dismiss.
filing such pleadings, for good cause, while it considers a motion to dismiss based on
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, or
absolute or qualified immunity of a public official.”)). Preliminary, the Court rejects
Defendants’ implied argument that the MIDP order allows this Court to delay mandatory
discovery as to ALL Defendants (including answering Defendants) if any ONE
Defendant files a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.
Further, the Court declines to delay the filing of an answer, which then triggers
compliance with the mandatory discovery, in this case. As noted above, the parties must
comply with the MIDP order with respect to Defendant Pinal County; therefore, the
Court does not see any efficiency in delaying discovery surrounding the same incident as
to Defendant MacAllister. Thus, the Court finds no good cause to delay the time to
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for relief from the MIDP order (Doc. 15) is
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.
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?