Zuck v. Peart et al

Filing 140

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Defendants' Objection (Filing No. 138 ) is sustained. Zuck's Motion for Enlargement of Time (Filing No. 114 ) and Motion to Compel Discovery (Filing No. 123 ) are denied without prejudice to Zuck filing, if necessary, a proper motion pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
WILLIAM ZUCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARIO PEART, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:12CV3252

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff William Zuck’s motion seeking
additional time in which to conduct discovery (Filing No. 114) and motion requesting
an order from the court to compel discovery (Filing No. 123). Subsequent to Zuck
filing these motions, Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that they
are entitled to qualified immunity (see Filing No. 135). Defendants have objected to
Zuck’s discovery-related motions, in part, because they have filed a motion raising the
issue of qualified immunity (Filing No. 138).
Unless a complaint states a claim of a violation of clearly established law, a
defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the
commencement of discovery. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985).
Upon careful review of the record before the court, the undersigned judge finds
Defendants’ Objection (Filing No. 138) should be sustained without prejudice to Zuck
filing, if necessary, a motion pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. That is, pending the court’s determination of whether Zuck has stated a
claim of a violation of clearly established law, no additional discovery will be allowed
unless Zuck shows that he cannot present facts essential to justify his opposition to
Defendants’ dispositive motions.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

Defendants’ Objection (Filing No. 138) is sustained.

2.
Zuck’s Motion for Enlargement of Time (Filing No. 114) and Motion to
Compel Discovery (Filing No. 123) are denied without prejudice to Zuck filing, if
necessary, a proper motion pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
DATED this 16th day of September, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District
of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The
court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases
to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

2