Price v. Smith et al

Filing 63

MEMORANDUM ORDER re 56 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Judge styled as Motion for Reconsideration re 55 Order filed by Carl Price. IT IS ORDERED that Price's appeal is DENIED,and Magistrate Judge Kirk's Order is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 2/5/15. (crt,DickersonSld, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION

CARL PRICE

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0158

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

R.N. SONYA SMITH, ET AL.

MAG. JUDGE JAMES D. KIRK

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff Carl Price
(“Price”), a former prisoner in the Franklin Parish Detention Center. Price claims that, while he was
incarcerated, Defendants Sonya Smith, R.N. (“Smith”); Dana Lee, R.N. (“Lee”); Chad Lee, Warden
of the Franklin Parish Detention Center (“Warden Lee”); and Kevin W. Cobb, Sheriff of Franklin
Parish (“Sheriff Cobb”) were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, which resulted in his foot
being partially amputated.
On April 21, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. No. 12]. On August 5, 2014,
Magistrate Judge Kirk issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 27] recommending that the
Court grant the motion and dismiss Price’s claims. The Court reviewed Price’s objections [Doc. No.
31], Defendants’ Response [Doc. No. 35], and Price’s Reply and supplemental affidavit [Doc. No.
38]. After review, the Court construed Price’s supplemental affidavit as a motion to amend his
Complaint. In light of the averments contained in the affidavit, the Court found Price had presented
“sufficient allegations that the nurses and Warden Lee’s actions and inactions were substantially
certain to produce serious injuries to Price.” [Doc. No. 39]. “ Accordingly, at this stage,” the Court
found that “these defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity,” declined to adopt the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and denied the Motion to Dismiss. Id. (emphasis added).
On November 3, 2014, the Court granted Price’s voluntary Motion to Dismiss Warden Lee
and Sheriff Cobb. Those Defendants have been dismissed without prejudice, leaving only Smith and
Lee as Defendants in this matter.
On November 12, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion for Limited Discovery [Doc. No. 47],
seeking discovery on qualified immunity. Price opposed the motion. [Doc. No. 50].
However, on December 5, 2014, Magistrate Judge Kirk issued an Order [Doc. No. 55]
granting Defendants’ Motion for Limited Discovery. Magistrate Judge Kirk’s Order provided for
(1) a 120-day period of discovery limited to the issue of qualified immunity, (2) a time period for
filing dispositive motions after the close of discovery, (3) the setting of a status conference after the
resolution of any dispositive motions on qualified immunity, and (4) the exchange of initial
disclosures.
On December 9, 2014, Price filed an appeal of Magistrate Judge Kirk’s Order [Doc. No. 56].
Price argues that Magistrate Judge Kirk’s Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law because the
Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. Therefore, Price
contends that “[t]here is no legal support for limiting discovery to issues associated with qualified
immunity after the District Court has already denied a Rule 12(b) motion and the matter is
proceeding to trial.” Id. at ¶ 12.
Defendants oppose the appeal. [Doc. No. 58]. They contend that the issue of qualified
immunity has not been “fully and finally resolved,” but that the Court determined only that Price’s
“asserted facts . . . when taken as true, serve to overcome the defense of qualified immunity at the
pleading stage.” Id. Citing Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent, Defendants argue that Price
2

is not entitled to full discovery at this stage, but only discovery on the issue of qualified immunity.
Thus, they argue that Magistrate Judge Kirk’s order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law
and should be affirmed.
In his Reply [Doc. No. 61], Price argues that the case law cited by Defendants is inapplicable.
Instead, Price argues that the case law supports its arguments that limited discovery should not be
allowed now that the Court had denied Defendants qualified immunity.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the Court must review Magistrate Judge Kirk’s ruling on
this non-dispositive matter under the clearly erroneous/contrary to law standard.
Contrary to Price’s unfounded conclusion, the Court has not denied Defendants’ qualified
immunity defense. The Court determined only that Price had alleged sufficient facts which, if true,
would be sufficient to defeat qualified immunity in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6). See Zapata v.
Melson, 750 F.3d 481, 484-85 (5th Cir. 2014). It was and is the intent of the Court to allow
Defendants to re-assert the qualified immunity defense through a motion for summary judgment, if
such a motion is appropriate, after the parties have had an opportunity to conduct limited discovery
on this issue. See Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1433-34 (5th Cir. 1995) (“The district court 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. Even if such limited discovery is allowed, at its end, the court can again
determine whether the case can proceed and consider any motions for summary judgment under Rule
56.”).
Accordingly, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Kirk’s Order was neither clearly
erroneous nor contrary to law, but was narrowly tailored to allow the parties to conduct limited
3

discovery on the qualified immunity defense which may still be available to Defendants by way of
filing a dispositive motion. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Price’s appeal [Doc. No. 56] is DENIED, and Magistrate Judge Kirk’s
Order [Doc. No. 55] is AFFIRMED.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 5th day of February, 2015.

4