Clifton v. Jeff Davis County, Georgia et al
Filing
76
ORDER re 56 MOTION for Summary Judgment. The Court ORDERS the parties to file supplemental briefs. Counsel for Defendants shall file a supplemental brief on or before 11/16/2018. Within fourteen (14) days of Defendants supplemental brief, Plaintiff shall file a supplemental brief. Defendants must file any reply within fourteen (14) days of Plaintiffs response brief. Signed by District Judge R. Stan Baker on 10/26/2018. (evs)
FILED
Scott L. Poff, Clerk
United States District Court
By Ericka Sharpe at 11:59 am, Oct 26, 2018
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
BRUNSWICK DIVISION
TYLER BRENT CLIFTON,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:16-cv-108
v.
JEFF DAVIS COUNTY, GEORGIA; and
RAY WOOTEN, HUGH BRANTLEY,
WANDA MARCHANT, WAYNE HALL,
CARLA ROBERTS POWELL, and SHERIFF
PRESTON BOHANNON, all in their
individual capacities,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter, in which Plaintiff Tyler Clifton claims various violations of his civil rights, is
before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 56.) Plaintiff filed a
Response, (doc. 61), and Defendants subsequently filed a Reply, (doc. 68). After considering the
parties’ submissions, the Court finds that supplemental briefing necessary regarding the issues of
qualified immunity and official immunity.
In the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Defendants who are being sued in their
individual capacities assert the defense of qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983
malicious prosecution claim, (doc. 56-2, p. 16), and all the Defendants claim official immunity
from Plaintiff’s claims brought under Georgia law, (id. at p. 24). These immunities are considered
“an entitlement not to stand trial rather than a mere defense to liability,” Roberson v. McIntosh
Cty. Sch. Dist., 755 S.E.2d 304, 306 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014) and they are thus “effectively lost if a
case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” White v. Pauly, ___ U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 548, 552
(2017) (citing Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009)). Here, neither Plaintiff nor
Defendants have presented their arguments regarding immunity with sufficient specificity for the
Court to decide either issue. As a result, additional briefing is necessary to avoid an erroneous
denial. 1
Thus, the Court ORDERS the parties to file supplemental briefs that conform to the
following specifications and the Court’s Local Rules. On or before November 16, 2018, counsel
for Defendants shall file a supplemental brief that clarifies the bases upon which each Defendant
claims entitlement to qualified and/or official immunity. Within fourteen (14) days of Defendants’
supplemental brief, Plaintiff shall file a supplemental brief that responds to Defendants’ immunity
arguments and explains why each Defendant is not entitled to immunity on the grounds claimed.
Defendants must file any reply within fourteen (14) days of Plaintiff’s response brief.
SO ORDERED, this 26th day of October, 2018.
R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
1
Specifically, Defendants present their arguments as a group (rather than as to each Defendant or type of
Defendant) and they rely in part on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ description of the burden of
proof in this context, despite the fact that the language Defendants quote was later retracted by that court.
(See Doc. 56-2, p. 17) (quoting and relying upon Post v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 7 F.3d 1552, 1557 (11th
Cir. 1993), which was modified by Post v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 14 F.3d 583 (11th Cir. 1994)).
Meanwhile, Plaintiff attempts to refute Defendants’ qualified immunity arguments by essentially “alleging
[a] violation of extremely abstract rights,” White, ___ U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. at 552, which does not assist the
Court in determining whether the relevant law was clearly established. Additionally, Plaintiff dedicates a
mere six sentences to the issue of official immunity under Georgia law. (Doc. 62, p. 25.)
2
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?