Shelton v. Berkebile et al
MINUTE ORDER denying 36 Defendants' Motion to Vacate Scheduling Conference. Scheduling Conference remains set 11/6/2014 10:00 AM. Deadline to file proposed Scheduling Order 11/3/2014. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 10/29/2014.(emill)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01441-WJM-MJW
D. BERKEBILE, FCC Warden and
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Vacate Scheduling
Conference (Docket No. 36) is DENIED. The Scheduling Conference remains set for
November 6, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. Defendants shall have up to and including November
3, 2014, to file a proposed scheduling order.
Defendants correctly point out that, where the doctrine of qualified immunity
applies as a defense, a stay of discovery is ordinarily appropriate pending resolution of
that claimed defense. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). But the defense of
qualified immunity applies only to suits for monetary damages and suits against persons
in their individual capacities; in suits for injunctive or declaratory relief, and officialcapacity suits, a stay of discovery is inappropriate because qualified immunity has no
relevance. Rome v. Romero, 225 F.R.D. 640 (D. Colo. 2004). Here, the Amended
Complaint does not identify whether its claims are sought against Defendants in their
individual capacities or their official––but either way, it seeks only injunctive relief.
Accordingly, the defense of qualified immunity appears inapplicable.
Date: October 29, 2014
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?