Hernandez v. Causey et al
ORDER denying without prejudice Phillip Causey's 102 Motion for Reconsideration re 89 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Strike. Signed by District Judge Taylor B. McNeel on 1/7/2022. (KAB)
Case 2:17-cv-00123-TBM-MTP Document 118 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GABINO RAMOS HERNANDEZ
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-123-TBM-MTP
PHILLIP CAUSEY and THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On June 18, 2021, Defendant Phillip Causey filed a Motion for Reconsideration  of the
Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order  denying his Motion for Summary Judgment. In its
Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court found that Hernandez’ Bivens claim against Causey
is the kind of Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure case that courts have adjudicated through
Bivens actions. After determining that Hernandez’ Bivens claim did not present a “new context,”
the Court found a genuine issue of material fact as to where Hernandez’ hands were positioned at
the time of the shooting and denied Causey’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis of
qualified immunity. Causey subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration asking this Court to
dismiss Plaintiff’s Bivens claim against Causey pursuant to a recent Fifth Circuit decision: Byrd v.
Lamb, 990 F.3d 879 (5th Cir. 2021). In his Motion, Causey asserts that in Byrd, the Fifth Circuit
clarified that a Bivens action could not lie in an excessive force claim that presented a new context
from the only Fourth Amendment claim that has been approved by the Supreme Court.
Since the hearing on this matter on August 12, 2021, the United States Supreme Court
granted a petition for writ of certiorari in Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 457 (2021), a Ninth Circuit case
finding a Fourth Amendment Bivens action against a Border Patrol agent. The Court certified two
Case 2:17-cv-00123-TBM-MTP Document 118 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 2
questions on appeal, including whether a cause of action exists under Bivens for claims against
federal officers engaged in immigration-related functions for allegedly violating a plaintiff’s Fourth
Amendment rights. The Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari on November 5,
2021, and oral argument is set for March 2, 2022.
With the question presented in Causey’s Motion for Reconsideration being so closely
aligned with the issue before the Supreme Court, and with the Court’s broad discretion to grant or
deny a motion for reconsideration, the Court believes that it would be a waste of judicial resources
to address Causey’s Motion before the Supreme Court’s ruling in Egbert v. Boule. Causey’s Motion
for Reconsideration is therefore denied without prejudice. Causey may reurge his Motion, if so
desired, following the conclusion of the appeal in Egbert v. Boule.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Causey’s Motion for
Reconsideration  is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
This, the 7th day of January, 2022.
TAYLOR B. McNEEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?