TS et al v. Doe et al
Filing
69
OPINION & ORDER: (1) Plaintiffs' 63 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery is DENIED. (2) Plaintiffs' 63 Motion for an extension of time to supplement pending dispositive motions is GRANTED only to the extent that the parties may file any necessary amendments to their respective pending summary judgment motions NO LATER THAN APRIL 27, 2012. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on April 17, 2012. (AWD) cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-217-KSF
T.S. AND T.S., AS NEXT FRIENDS TO
J.S. AND K.S.
V.
PLAINTIFFS
OPINION & ORDER
MITCHELL GABBARD, et al.
DEFENDANTS
**********
Currently before the Court is the motion of the plaintiffs, T.S. and T.S., as next friends of J.S.
and K.S., to extend the discovery deadline by an additional 60 days and to extend the time within
which the parties may supplement their currently pending dispositive motions by 60 days.
According to the applicable Scheduling Orders, discovery is to be completed and the dispositive
motions supplemented by April 16, 2012. In support of their motions, the plaintiffs contend that the
Supreme Court’s recent decision in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of
Burlington et al, 566 U.S. ____ (April 2, 2012), which held that it was proper to strip search adult
detainees upon admission to a jail or correctional facility, even if arrested for minor offenses, if they
are to be detained in the general population of the jail, implicates this case and requires additional
discovery. The Court disagrees for the following reasons.
First, the Court, through Magistrate Judge Wier, has already denied a request to stay this case
pending a ruling in the Florence case [DE #61]. Second, the Florence case did not adopt any new
constitutional test with respect to the evaluation of Fourth Amendment search claims asserted by
pretrial detainees. Rather, the Supreme Court applied its existing precedent to resolve a circuit split
concerning the constitutionality of blanket pretrial detainee strip searches concerning adult inmates
admitted to the general population.
Moreover, the Florence case is irrelevant to this Court’s
analysis of the Plaintiffs’ individual capacity claims for money damages. Because the Defendants
are asserting qualified immunity as a defense, the Court must consider the law at the time the
Defendants conducted the strip search. Finally, to the extent that the Defendants contend that the
Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory and injunctive relief related to the constitutionality of the DJJ’s
intake and body identification procedures is moot in light of the fact that DJJ no longer utilizes a
completely unclothed intake screening procedure on juveniles admitted to secure detention facilities,
the Court will consider this argument when ruling on the motions for summary judgment.
Accordingly, for these reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1)
the Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time to complete discovery [DE #63] is
DENIED; and
(2)
the Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time to supplement pending dispositive
motions [DE #63] is GRANTED only to the extent that the parties may file any
necessary amendments to their respective pending summary judgment motions NO
LATER THAN APRIL 27, 2012.
This April 17, 2012.
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?