Buchanan v. Hurt et al

Filing 84

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery (Filing No. 77 ) is granted without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a properly supported motion to conduct limited discovery to address the issue of qualified immunity. Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Filing No. 81 ) is denied without prejudice to reassertion. Plaintiff's Objection to Defendants' Request for a Stay (Filing No. 82 ) is overruled. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JESSICO BUCHANAN,
Plaintiff,
V.
HURT, Corporal, All defendants sued in
their individual and official capacity,
KLINE, Officer, All defendants sued in
their individual and official capacity,
STEINBECK, Sgt., All defendants sued
in their individual and official capacity,
DENNIS BAKEWELL, All defendants
sued in their individual and official
capacity, and ROBERT HOUSTON, All
defendants sued in their individual and
official capacity,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:13CV3172

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendants’ motion to stay discovery (Filing
No. 77) pending the court’s ruling on Defendants’ anticipated motion for summary
judgment on the issue of qualified immunity.
The doctrine of qualified immunity is designed to protect state actors from
monetary damages and the costs associated with litigation, such as discovery. Harlow
v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-18 (1982). Where qualified immunity is asserted as a
defense, it is within the discretion of the court to stay discovery until the issue of
qualified immunity is resolved. See Ballard v. Heineman, 548 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir.
2008).
Having considered the matter, the court finds Defendants’ motion to stay
discovery should be granted without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a motion for leave to
conduct discovery, if necessary, limited to the issue of qualified immunity. Any such

motion must indicate specific facts discovery might uncover regarding the qualified
immunity defense. See Britton v. Thompson, No. 7:08cv5008, 2009 WL 2365389 (D.
Neb. July 29, 2009).
Plaintiff has also filed a renewed request for the appointment of counsel. (Filing
No. 81.) This request will be denied. The court cannot routinely appoint counsel in civil
cases. In Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996), the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals explained that “[i]ndigent civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory
right to appointed counsel.” Trial courts have “broad discretion to decide whether both
the plaintiff and the court will benefit from the appointment of counsel, taking into
account the factual and legal complexity of the case, the presence or absence of
conflicting testimony, and the plaintiff’s ability to investigate the facts and present his
claim.” Id. Having considered these factors, the court concludes that Plaintiff does not
require counsel at this time.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Filing No. 77) is granted without
prejudice to Plaintiff filing a properly supported motion to conduct limited
discovery to address the issue of qualified immunity.

2.

Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Filing No. 81)
is denied without prejudice to reassertion.

3.

Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendants’ Request for a Stay (Filing No. 82) is
overruled.

DATED this 18th day of October, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge
2