O'Quin et al v. Gautreaux et al

Filing 45

RULING granting in part and denying in part 39 Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Appeal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 6/18/2015. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

OTIS WILLIAM O’QUINN, ET AL
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 14-98-BAJ-SCR
SID GAUTREAUX, III, ET AL
RULING ON MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING APPEAL
Before the court is the Motion to Stay Discovery Pending
Appeal filed by defendants East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff Sid J.
Gautreaux, III, East Baton Rouge Parish Prison Warden Dennis
Grimes, Lt. D. Barrick, Cpl. Matthew Shumate, Lt. LaMotte and Cpl.
Grant (collectively, “EBR Sheriff Defendants”).
number

39.

Record document

Plaintiffs filed an opposition.1

The EBR Sheriff Defendants sought a stay of all discovery as
to them pending the outcome of their appeal from the Ruling and
Order issued March 31, 2015.2

Plaintiffs argued that the EBR

Sheriff Defendants’ appeal is invalid, and even if it is not it has
little chance of success. Plaintiffs also argued that even if this
court no longer has jurisdiction over the claims against the EBR
Sheriff Defendants in their individual capacities, the case may
proceed on the claims against any of these defendants sued in their

1

2

Record document number 42.

Record document number 33, Ruling and Order denying the EBR
Sheriff Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, without prejudice to
reasserting their qualified immunity defense at a later stage of
the proceedings.

official capacity, and therefore discovery should be allowed as to
such defendants.
Essentially

for

the

reasons

Defendants, their motion has merit.

argued

by

the

EBR

Sheriff

As these defendants correctly

argued, generally the denial of a qualified immunity defense is
immediately appealable.3

That is so here because the defense was

raised in a Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P., motion which requires the
court to accept the well-pleaded factual allegations as true and
then decide the legal issues.4

As to these defendants sued in

their individual capacity, if they are entitled to qualified
immunity that immunity includes not only immunity from liability
but also relieves them of the burden of discovery.

The Ruling and

Order denied the EBR Sheriff Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and in
places stated that the plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficient to
warrant additional discovery relevant to claims which are subject
to the qualified immunity defense.5

The ruling left open the

3

Court of appeals has jurisdiction to review district court’s
interlocutory denial of qualified immunity defense only “to the
extent that the appeal turns on an issue of law.”
Newman v.
Guedry, 703 F.3d 757, 761 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted)(interlocutory denial of motion for summary
judgment); Brown v. Miller, 519 F.3d 231, 236 (5th Cir. 2008)
(interlocutory denial of motion to dismiss).
4

Brown, 519 F.3d at 236.

5

Record document number 33, pp. 12, 13, 15-16.
An order
permitting discovery in a case where a qualified immunity defense
is asserted must follow the two-step procedure mandated by the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Zapata v. Melson, 750 F.3d 481,
(continued...)
2

possibility of raising the defense again should discovery reveal
additional facts that support the plaintiffs’ claims.
The foregoing discussion is not a reevaluation of the merits
of the defendants’ qualified immunity defense or any kind of
prediction as to the merits of the defendants’ appeal.

Rather, it

is to explain why the plaintiff’s argument that the EBR Sheriff
Defendants’ appeal is invalid or meritless is unpersuasive. In the
circumstances here, it cannot be said that their appeal is so
obviously lacking that discovery as to EBR Sheriff Defendants
should be allowed to proceed notwithstanding their appeal.6
There is no practical way of protecting the EBR Sheriff
Defendants sued in their individual capacity from the burdens of
discovery while allowing the plaintiffs to pursue discovery from

5

(...continued)
485 (5th Cir. 2014). First, the district court must determine that
the plaintiff’s well-pleaded facts, taken as true, would overcome
the qualified immunity defense. Second, “if the court is unable to
rule on the immunity defense without further clarification of the
facts, it may issue a discovery order narrowly tailored to uncover
only those facts needed to rule on the immunity claim.” Id. at
485. Such an order must identify any questions of fact that need
to be resolved before the court would be able to determine whether
the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.
Id.
Such a
discovery order may be issued before ruling on a motion to dismiss.
Wicks v. Miss. State Emp’t Servs., 41 F.3d 991, 997, n. 27 (5th
Cir. 1995). A discovery order which does not fulfill both steps of
the analysis may be reviewed on appeal. See, Zantiz v. Seal, 602
F.Appx. 154 (5th Cir. 2015).
6

A defendant whose motion to dismiss based on qualified
immunity is denied is still entitled to the application of Zapata’s
second step limiting discovery, if the court did not also determine
whether the defense would fail on summary judgment. Zantiz, 602
F.Appx. at 163, n. 8
3

them insofar as they were sued in their official capacity.

Suing

the EBR Sheriff Defendants in their official capacity is equivalent
to suing the agency they work for, i.e. the East Baton Rouge Parish
Sheriff.

The sheriff was sued in his official capacity, too.

And

the Ruling and Order found that the plaintiffs sufficiently pled
claims that allow for discovery regarding “municipal liability”
from Sheriff Gautreaux in his official capacity.7

Therefore,

pursuant to the Ruling and Order, discovery may proceed against
Sheriff Gautreaux insofar as he was sued in his official capacity.
Lastly, after this motion was filed the plaintiffs and the EBR
Sheriff Defendants filed a Joint Notice of Settlement and sought
entry of an order of conditional dismissal.8

The notice did not

indicate whether these parties had reached any agreement regarding
disposition of this motion, or seeking discovery from the EBR
Sheriff Defendants, or the defendants’ appeal.

Therefore, this

ruling is not intended to trump any agreement reached by these
parties regarding discovery from defendant Sheriff Gautreaux or any
of the other EBR Sheriff Defendants.
Accordingly, Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Appeal filed by

7

Record document number 33, p. 16. This aspect of the Ruling
and Order also applied to defendant Warden Grimes. However, as
stated, suing him in his official capacity is just another way of
suing the agency he works for, i.e. the East Baton Rouge Parish
Sheriff. Consequently, because Sheriff Gautreaux was sued in his
official capacity, also suing Warden Grimes in his official
capacity is superfluous and unnecessary.
8

Record document number 44.
4

defendants East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff Sid J. Gautreaux, III,
East Baton Rouge Parish Prison Warden Dennis Grimes, Lt. D.
Barrick, Cpl. Matthew Shumate, Lt. LaMotte and Cpl. Grant is
granted in part.

The motion is granted as to all discovery sought

by the plaintiffs from these defendants insofar as they were sued
in their individual capacity. The motion is also granted as to all
discovery sought by the plaintiffs from these defendants, except
Sheriff Gautreaux, insofar as they were sued in their official
capacity.

The motion is denied as to discovery sought by the

plaintiffs from defendant Sheriff Gautreaux insofar as he was sued
in his official capacity.

However, this ruling does not supercede

or negate any agreement between the plaintiffs and defendant
Sheriff Gautreaux, or any of the other EBR Sheriff Defendants,
which may have been made as part of the settlement of the claims
between the plaintiffs and the EBR Sheriff Defendants.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, June 18, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5