Irby v. Cain et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying 10 Motion for Permission to Serve Special Additional Requests for Admission on All Defendants and granting 14 Motion to Stay Discovery pending resolution of 8 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr on 11/8/2013. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CLIFFORD IRBY, II (#581519)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
N. BURL CAIN, ET AL.

NO. 13-0327-SDD-RLB

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff’s Motion for Permission to Serve
Special Additional Requests for Admission on All Defendants (Rec. Doc. 10) and the
defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Rec. Doc. 14).
The plaintiff complains in the instant proceeding that his First Amendment constitutional
rights were violated on December 23, 2012, when the defendants charged him with a disciplinary
report, placed him in administrative segregation, and thereafter punished him in response to his
refusal to attend a religious call-out at the prison. The plaintiff also complains that the issuance
of the referenced disciplinary report disrupted and interfered with a visit which he had scheduled
with his family on the referenced date. In response to the plaintiff’s allegations, the defendants
have filed a Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 8) wherein they have asserted, inter alia, the defense
of qualified immunity.
As a general rule, the assertion of the defense of qualified immunity places substantial
limitations upon the conduct of discovery, see Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1434 (5th Cir.
1995) (finding that because qualified immunity is an immunity, not just from liability, but also
from the burdens of discovery, “[t]he district court may ban discovery at [the] threshold pleading
stage and may limit any necessary discovery to the defense of qualified immunity .... [and] need

not allow any discovery unless it finds that plaintiff has supported his claim with sufficient
precision and factual specificity to raise a genuine issue as to the illegality of defendant’s
conduct at the time of the alleged acts”). In the instant case, the Court finds that it will be able to
address the defendants’ assertion of the defense of qualified immunity without the need for the
discovery requested by the plaintiff. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Rec. Doc. 14) be and
it is hereby GRANTED, and discovery is stayed in this proceeding pending a resolution of the
defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Permission to Serve
Special Additional Requests for Admission on All Defendants (Rec. Doc. 10) be and it is hereby
DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on November 8, 2013.

s

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE