Smith (ID 87984) v. Trapp et al
ORDER denying 93 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A Robinson on 10/04/2017.Mailed to pro se party Shawn D. Smith by regular mail. (cv)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
SHAWN D. SMITH,
Case No. 14-3220-JAR-DJW
CHRISTOPHER TRAPP, ET AL.,
On June 5, 2017, Defendant Christopher Trapp filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment.1 Plaintiff sought leave to
amend the complaint. On June 30, 2017, Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse stayed Plaintiff’s
deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment, pending
a ruling on Plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend.2 In that same Order, Judge Waxse granted
Defendant Trapp’s motion to stay discovery pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss or for
summary judgment because Defendant asserted the defense of qualified immunity.3 On
September 11, 2017, Judge Waxse denied Plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend.4 In the
meantime, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend his deadline to complete discovery.5 Plaintiff
indicated in that motion that he required additional time for discovery due to his transfer to
another facility, but failed to explain the nature of the additional discovery he required and how
Doc. 85. Had the motions to amend been granted, Defendant’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for
summary judgment, would have been moot.
Qualified immunity is not just immunity from liability; it protects governmental employees from litigation
and discovery. See, e.g., Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985).
long he expected such discovery to take. On September 15, 2017, this Court granted Plaintiff’s
motion to extend the discovery deadline, allowing Plaintiff until October 13, 2017 to conclude
discovery and respond to Defendant Trapp’s pending dispositive motion.6
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadline (Doc.
93), wherein he seeks to “clarify” his previous request for an extension of the discovery deadline.
In the motion, Plaintiff complains that has not had a reasonable period of time to conduct
discovery in this matter. Plaintiff also sets forth three types of discovery he hopes to obtain
through this requested discovery extension.
As to Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Defendant Trapp’s motion to dismiss or
in the alternative for summary judgment argues that qualified immunity shields him from
liability for using allegedly excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment when he strip
searched Plaintiff on August 12, 2012, after receiving a tip that Plaintiff possessed a cell phone.
The remainder of Defendant Trapp’s motion seeks dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on
the basis of the allegations in the First Amended Complaint, as supplemented by the Martinez
report. Judge Waxse properly stayed discovery on June 30, 2017, pending a ruling on this
motion because it raised the defense of qualified immunity.7 Rather than simply extending the
discovery deadline along with the response deadline to Defendant Trapp’s motion to dismiss, or
in the alternative, for summary judgment, this Court should have analyzed Plaintiff’s motion
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) in its September 15 Order. That rule allows a movant to request
additional time to take discovery in order to respond to a motion for summary judgment, but
such a request must be supported by affidavit or declaration. In his most recent motion, Plaintiff
states that he requires the following discovery in order to respond to Defendant’s dispositive
See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
motion: (1) prison policies, training manuals, and reports to dispute Defendant’s contention that
the strip search was reasonable in furtherance of legitimate penological interests; (2) the KDOC
video evidence of his prison cell, which he believes will show that Defendant Trapp allowed
other inmates to witness the strip search; and (3) evidence regarding a tip Defendant claims he
received about the cell phone, which is not discussed in the Martinez Report.
Even overlooking Plaintiff’s failure to submit his discovery needs by affidavit, he has
failed to make a showing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) that would justify lifting the stay on
discovery prior to the Court’s resolution of the pending motion. First, the prison policies and
procedures that pertain to Plaintiff’s claims are included in the Martinez Report. Second,
Plaintiff’s contention that his cell door was open during the strip search does not require KDOC
video to support; Plaintiff may assert such a fact through his own affidavit. Finally, Plaintiff is
free to argue about discrepancies or omissions in the Martinez Report in contesting summary
judgment. For this reason, the Court declines to allow further discovery, and Plaintiff’s motion
is denied. If Plaintiff’s claims survive the pending dispositive motion, the discovery stay will be
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension
of Discovery Deadline (Doc. 93) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 4, 2017
S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?