Hawkins v. County of Lincoln et al

Filing 54

ORDER granting 46 Motion to Stay Discovery filed by defendant, County of Lincoln. Discovery is stayed as to the County and any Doe defendants who are County employees, without prejudice to plaintiff filing, if necessary, a motion for leave to conduct limited discovery on the issue of qualified immunity. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F. A. Gossett. (CLS, )

- F G 3 Hawkins v. County of Lincoln et al

D o c . 54

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA KARA HAWKINS, Personal Representative of the Estate of Phillip Hatcher, Deceased, ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) COUNTY OF LINCOLN, a Nebraska ) Political Subdivision, DOES 1-10, in their ) official and individual capacities; CITY OF ) NORTH PLATTE, a Nebraska Political ) Subdivision; and GREAT PLAINS ) REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, a ) Nebraska corporation, ) ) Defendants. )

7:10CV5001 ORDER

T h is matter is before the court on the motion (#46) of defendant, County of Lincoln (" C o u n ty") , to stay discovery pending resolution of its absolute and/or qualified immunity d e f en s e s. The County and the Doe defendants 1 subsequently (and timely) filed a motion for s u m m a ry judgment based on qualified immunity (#50). NATURE OF THE CASE O n June 1, 2008, plaintiff's decedent, Phillip Hatcher, was arrested on suspicion of th e f t and traffic offenses. The arrest was made in North Platte, Lincoln County, Nebraska b y officers employed by the City of North Platte. Phillip suffered from serious mental illn e ss e s and, at the time of his arrest, was attempting to take his own life by cutting his wrist. C ity police transported Phillip to the Great Plains Regional Medical Center ("GRMPC") for e v a l u a tio n , at which time Phillip reported a history of psychiatric disorders, suicide attempts, a n d personal problems. GRPMC released Phillip to the City police for immediate incarceration at the county j a il . During his incarceration at the Lincoln County Jail, Phillip exhibited signs of mental

The complaint alleges that "Defendants DOES 1 - 10 (collectively, "DOES") are and were employed by Defendants COUNTY and CITY as correctional officers, jailers, and/or law enforcement officers at all relevant times, and are liable for their actions in their individual and official capacities." (Filing 1, p. 1).

1

Dockets.Justia.com

illn e ss and suicidality. The Nebraska Jail Standards require jails to train their employees to re c o g n ize signs that an inmate is mentally ill and suicidal. Plaintiff alleges that the County a g e n ts and employees disregarded and were deliberately indifferent to signs that Phillip was m e n tally ill and suicidal, and the County failed to provide Phillip with medical treatment. O n June 4, 2008, County employees found Phillip hanging from a noose fashioned from his tu b e socks in his cell. He died on June 6, 2008. In this action, plaintiff asserts claims against the County and the Doe defendants (as m e m b e r s of the County's professional staff, acting under color of state law) for common law n e g lig e n c e and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of Phillip's rights under the E ig h th and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution in that the Doe defendants acted w ith deliberate indifference to Phillip's medical needs, the County had a custom or practice o f tolerating misconduct by employees at the Jail, and that the County did not properly train its employees. The County and Doe defendants deny these allegations. DISCUSSION T h e County and Doe defendants contend they are entitled to a stay of discovery p e n d in g the district court's ruling on their motion for summary judgment based on qualified im m u n ity.2 The doctrine of qualified immunity operates to protect governmental officials f ro m both the burdens of trial and discovery. "However, if the plaintiffs' allegations state a c la im of violation of clearly established law and the parties disagree as to what actions the la w enforcement officers took, discovery may be appropriate for the limited purpose of a d d r e ss in g the issue of qualified immunity." Lovelace v. Delo, 47 F.3d 286, 287 (8th Cir. 1 9 9 5 ) (citing Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 646 n.6 (1987), and Mitchell v. Forsyth, 4 7 2 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)). The court finds that discovery must be stayed as to the County and County employees, w ith o u t prejudice to plaintiff filing, if necessary, a motion for leave to conduct limited d is c o v e ry on the issue of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects individual government officials from liability in a section 1983 action unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable official in the defendant's position would have known. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, two questions must be answered: (1) whether, after viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, there was a deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right; and, if so, (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation such that a reasonable official would understand his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. at 201. Summary judgment may be denied on the issue of qualified immunity if there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a reasonable officer could have believed his actions to be lawful. Ngo v. Storlie, 495 F.3d 597, 602 (8th Cir. 2007).

2

-2-

I T IS ORDERED that the motion to stay discovery filed by defendant, County of L inco ln, is granted. Discovery is stayed as to the County and any Doe defendants who are C o u n ty employees, without prejudice to plaintiff filing, if necessary, a motion for leave to c o n d u c t limited discovery on the issue of qualified immunity. D A T E D August 26, 2010. B Y THE COURT: s / F.A. Gossett U n ite d States Magistrate Judge

-3-