Sarkar v. Board of Trustees of The State Institutions of Higher Learning for the State of Mississippi et al
ORDER STAYING INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY MATTERS PENDING RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander on 8/28/15. (bnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
FAZLUL H. SARKAR, PH.D.
CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:15-CV-83-NBB-SAA
THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI, ET AL.
ORDER STAYING INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY MATTERS
PENDING RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant Larry Walker has moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
the qualified immunity doctrine for dismissal of all claims against him in his individual capacity.
Docket 15. Although Local Uniform Civil Rule 16(b)(3)(B) provides that the “filing an
immunity defense or jurisdictional defense motion stays the attorney conference and disclosure
requirements and all discovery not related to the issue, pending the court’s ruling on the motion,
including any appeal,” the court has discretion to allow other claims in the action to proceed if it
finds that course is in the best interests of the parties and judicial economy. See, e.g., Harris v.
City of Balch Springs, 33 F. Supp.3d 730, 732,33 (N.D. Tex. 2014) (no authority precludes
discovery and pretrial matters regarding claims not protected by qualified immunity doctrine),
citing Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 312, 116 S.Ct. 834, 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996) (Qualified
immunity is “a right to immunity from certain claims, not from litigation in general.”).
The plaintiff has also sued defendant Walker in his official capacity, along with all other
defendants, and, based upon the facts alleged in the complaint, it appears that Mr. Walker will be
required to defend this action in that capacity in any event. It is likely that the breadth of
discovery relating to individual capacity claims – such as defendant’s net worth or other
financial information – will not be dramatically greater than that related to the official capacity
claims. This information can be obtained with relative ease and very little expense if the court
should deny the pending motion to dismiss. Staying the entire case would, in the court’s
opinion, be counterproductive to all involved in this action. Accordingly, it is
That discovery relating to the claims against defendant Walker in his individual capacity only are
hereby STAYED. All other facets of this action will proceed as usual.
This, the 28th day of August, 2015.
/s/ S. Allan Alexander
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?