Williams v. Sanders et al

Filing 34

RULING denying 31 Motion to Strike and Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 6/13/2014. (SMG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RONALD WILLIAMS (#403681)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

JOHN SANDERS, ET AL

NUMBER 13-97-BAJ-SCR

RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION IN LIMINE
Before the court is the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and
Motion in Limine.

Record document number 31.

The motion is

opposed.1
Plaintiff moved to strike the defendant’s immunity defenses on
the ground that they were asserted by the defendant in summary
judgment motion,2 the court denied the motion as to the immunity
defenses,3 and the defendant did not appeal the denial.
As to Eleventh Amendment immunity, the defendant argued that
the court determined he does have Eleventh Amendment immunity
insofar as he was sued in his official capacity.

Defendant argued

that because the court found there were significant fact in dispute
the issue of whether the defendant has qualified immunity could not
be resolved on summary judgment.
Defendant is correct.

The court did not find that the

1

Record document number 32.

2

Record document number 16.

3

Record document number 20, Magistrate Judge’s Report; record
document number 21, Ruling and Order.

defendant does not have qualified immunity.

The court did find

that at the time of the incident a reasonable corrections officer
would have know that beating an inmate without provocation, as
alleged by the plaintiff, was not objectively reasonable.4

But the

court also found that significant facts which would support or
defeat qualified immunity were genuinely disputed.5

Because the

denial of the defendant’s summary judgment motion as to his
qualified immunity defense was based on finding that there are
disputed issues of material facts, an immediate appeal of the
ruling would have been dismissed.6
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and Motion in
Limine is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, June 13, 2014.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Record document number 20, p. 5.

5

Id. at 11-12.

6

See Pasco ex rel. Pasco v. Knoblauch, 566 F.3d 572 (5th Cir.
2009) (denial of qualified immunity on summary judgment is
immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine if based
on an issue of law; if district court found that genuine factual
disputes exist, plaintiff’s version of the facts is accepted as
true to the extent supported by the summary judgment record);
Whittington v. Maxwell, 455 Fed.Appx. 450 (5th Cir. 2011) (on
interlocutory appeal appellate court lack the power to review
district court’s decision that a genuine factual dispute exists;
public official must be prepared to concede best view of the facts
to plaintiff and discuss only legal issues raised by appeal).