Real v. Walker et al

Filing 60

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/29/2012 ORDERING that plaintiff shall not file a Second Amended Complaint until further order of this court; within 14 days, defendants shall inform this court in writing, with citations to supporting authority, their responses to the questions asked in this order. (See order for further details) (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

RANDY REAL,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

No. 2:09-cv-3273 GEB KJN P

vs.
JAMES WALKER, Warden, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

16

On June 22, 2012, defendants filed a notice of interlocutory appeal challenging

17

this court’s decision to defer consideration of defendants’ qualified immunity defense pending

18

the clarification of pro se plaintiff’s claims in a significantly narrowed Second Amended

19

Complaint. (See Findings and Recommendations filed March 2, 2012 (Dkt. No. 43 at 27-28),

20

adopted by the District Judge on March 30, 2012 (Dkt. No. 47)).

21

In support of their notice of appeal, defendants cite two cases authorizing an

22

immediate interlocutory appeal after a lower court expressly decides a claim of qualified

23

immunity. See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 2080 (2011) (reversing Ninth Circuit’s

24

affirmation of district court’s express denial of qualified immunity on motion to dismiss); Lacey

25

v. Maricopa County, 649 F.3d 1118, (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming in part and reversing in part the

26

district court’s express dismissal of several qualified immunity defenses); but see rehearing en
1

1

banc granted by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 663 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. Nov 10, 2011). In addition,

2

defendants cite several cases in support of their position that an immediate interlocutory appeal is

3

available when the district court fails to reach the issue of qualified immunity. This court

4

construes the cited cases somewhat differently. See Lowe v. Town of Fairland, 143 F.3d 1378,

5

1381 (10th Cir. 1998) (declined to decide issue of qualified immunity “because the district court

6

failed to consider it,” and “remanded to the district court for a proper determination in the first

7

instance”); Helton v. Clements, 787 F.2d 1016, 1017 (5th Cir. 1986) (remanding to the district

8

court for further consideration after holding that “an order which . . . refuses to rule on a motion

9

to dismiss based on the defense of governmental immunity is an immediately appealable order,”

10

provided that the refusal to rule satisfies the three factors identified in Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472

11

U.S. 511 (1985), viz., that the refusal renders the claim “effectively unreviewable on appeal from

12

a final judgment;” “conclusively determines the defendant’s claim of right not to stand trial

13

because there are simply no further steps that can be taken in the District Court to avoid the trial

14

the defendant maintains is barred;” and the claim of immunity “is conceptually distinct from the

15

merits of the plaintiff’s claim that his rights have been violated”) (internal quotation and

16

punctuation marks omitted); Craft v. Wipf, 810 F.2d 170, 173 (8th Cir. 1987) (remanding for

17

further consideration by district court a qualified immunity defense it failed to consider on

18

summary judgment); Musso v. Hourigan, 836 F.2d 736, 741 (2d Cir. 1988) (same, applying

19

Mitchell factors).

20

In the present case, this court found defendants’ qualified immunity defenses

21

“premature” and expressly declined to reach them at this early stage of the litigation. (Dkt. No.

22

43 at 27-8.) The court reasoned that, having dismissed most of the twenty-two claims alleged in

23

plaintiff’s 120-page First Amended Complaint (including exhibits), and dismissed eight of the

24

eighteen named defendants, all pursuant to defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiff was entitled

25

to re-allege and clarify his remaining claims in a Second Amended Complaint before this court

26

reasonably considered whether plaintiff’s alleged facts establish a cognizable constitutional
2

1

violation, and whether the rights at issue were clearly established at the time. Saucier v. Katz,

2

533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). No discovery has been authorized in this case, nor a dispositive

3

motion deadline set. In pro se prisoner cases, the court’s consideration of a motion to dismiss is

4

more akin to a further screening order under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), than a preclusive final

5

ruling. This court postponed consideration of defendants’ qualified immunity defenses based on

6

the determination that it created no risk that such defenses would become “effectively

7

unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment,” Mitchell v. Forsyth, supra, 472 U.S. at 526-27.

8

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1. Plaintiff shall not file his Second Amended Complaint until further order of

10

this court; and
2. Within fourteen days after the filing date of this court, defendants shall inform

11
12

this court in writing, with citations to supporting authority, of the following:
a. Whether it is defendants’ position that the filing of their Notice of Appeal

13
14

automatically deprives this court of jurisdiction pending a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of

15

Appeals?
b. If the answer to “2a” is “no,” do defendants intend to request a stay of this

16
17

action in the district court?
c. If the answer to “2a” is “no,” defendants shall also address why, in a pro se

18
19

prisoner case, it might not be more appropriate for this court to allow plaintiff to clarify and

20

narrow his claims in an amended complaint before the court considers whether such claims

21

allege the violation of clearly established constitutional rights, and then determine whether any

22

claims survive and whether the court has effectively denied defendants’ qualified immunity

23

defenses before defendants appeal any such order?

24

////

25

////

26

////
3

SO ORDERED.

1
2

DATED: June 29, 2012

3
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4
5
6

real3273.appeal

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4