Alexander v. Lafayette City Parish Consolidated Government et al

Filing 13

ORDER REQUIRING RULE 7(a) REPLY. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 5/6/10. (crt,Smith, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA L A F A Y E T T E -O P E L O U S A S DIVISION A L B E R T K. ALEXANDER VERSUS L A F A Y E T T E CITY PARISH * * * C I V I L ACTION NO. 09-1016 J U D G E DOHERTY M A G I S T R A T E JUDGE HANNA

O R D E R REQUIRING RULE 7(a) REPLY W h e n an officer or other official sued in his or her personal capacity asserts a q u a lif ie d immunity defense in a civil rights action, the plaintiff must support his or her c la im "with sufficient precision and factual specificity to raise a genuine issue as to the ille g a lity of defendant's conduct at the time of the alleged acts." Schultea v. Wood, 47 F .3 d 1427, 1434 (5 th Cir. 1995). As suggested in Schultea, this court will require plaintiff to file a reply to defendant's answer asserting qualified immunity pursuant to RULE 7(A) F .R .C IV.P . Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty (20) days of the date of this order, th e plaintiff shall file a reply to the qualified immunity defense pled by the defendant, W illia m T. Babin, Guy Lebreton, Norman Maldonado, Rob Olivero, Mike Marin, M ic h a el Neustrom. The reply must allege with specificity the constitutional rights that w e r e violated, the facts that support these allegations, the persons involved in these a lleg e d violations, and the reasons that the asserted defense of qualified immunity is in a p p lic a b le .

2 I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant(s) shall not file any response to p lain tiff' s reply; any response filed will be disregarded. The purpose of this order is to d e te rm in e whether discovery should be banned or limited pending the filing by d e f en d a n ts of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b), or, alternatively, a motion for su m m a ry judgment. This process does not absolve defendant(s) from filing a timely m o tio n to dismiss or motion for summary judgment on the qualified immunity issue.1 S ig n e d at Lafayette, Louisiana on this 6 th day of May, 2010.

1

The Fifth Circuit in Schultea stated:

The district court may ban discovery at this threshold pleading stage and may limit any necessary discovery to the defense of qualified immunity. 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. Schultea, 47 F.3d at 1432-34.
mem: T:\DRAFTS FOR PJH TO SIGN\09-cv-1016.Alexander.7a order.wpd5/6/10