Soza v. Demsich et al
Filing
32
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen denying 19 Opposed MOTION to Stay Discovery. Discovery is stayed in this matter pending resolution of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18). (KBM)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
BRADLEY SOZA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIV 17-0627 MV/KBM
JAMES DEMSICH and
THOMAS MELVIN,
in their individual capacities,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Stay of Discovery
(Doc. 19). The Court has reviewed the motion, the briefs submitted by the parties and
the relevant authorities, and finds that the motion is well taken and will be granted.
Plaintiff brings this action for damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged
violations of his constitutional rights in connection with a June 29, 2014 search and
seizure of his person. Defendants have countered with a motion for summary judgment
(Doc. 18) in which they assert entitlement to qualified immunity. Defendants have now
filed the instant motion to stay discovery until such time that the presiding judge issues
a decision on the motion for summary judgment.
“[Q]ualified immunity is not only a defense to liability but also entitlement to
immunity from suit and other demands of litigation. Discovery should not be allowed
until the court resolves the threshold question whether the law was clearly established
at the time the allegedly unlawful action occurred.” Workman v. Jordan, 958 F.2d 332,
336 (10th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Accordingly, in cases where qualified immunity is
asserted in a dispositive motion, the movant is ordinarily entitled to a stay of discovery
until the qualified immunity question is resolved. See Jiron v. City of Lakewood, 392
F.3d 410, 414 (10th Cir. 2004); Workman, 958 F.2d at 336.
Indeed, reaffirming its long-held view that discovery should be stayed when
qualified immunity is asserted, the United States Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009), reasoned as follows:
The basic thrust of the qualified-immunity doctrine is to free
officials from the concerns of litigation, including “avoidance of
disruptive discovery” . . . There are serious and legitimate reasons
for this. If a government official is to devote time to his or her
duties, and to the formulation of sound and responsible policies, it
is counterproductive to require the substantial diversion that is
attendant to participating in litigation and making informed
decisions as to how it should proceed. Litigation, though
necessary to ensure that officials comply with the law, exacts
heavy costs in terms of efficiency and expenditure of valuable time
and resources that might otherwise be directed to the proper
execution of the work of the government . . . .
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 685. Indeed, the Court concludes that long standing law establishes
that generally Defendants are entitled to a qualified immunity determination before
undertaking the burdens of discovery and litigation.
Plaintiff maintains, however, that the general rule of staying discovery should not
apply in this case given its procedural posture. Plaintiff Soza was arrested and charged
with the crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm. See United States v. Soza,
14cr3754 JAP. However, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the denial of Mr.
Soza’s motion to suppress in the criminal case and reasoned as follows:
handcuffing Defendant was not reasonably necessary to protect the
officers’ personal safety and to maintain the status quo during the course
of the stop. As a result, the officers unlawfully arrested Defendant in the
2
absence of probable cause when they began to handcuff him, and the
evidence collected by the officers after that point—the blood and glass on
his person; his statement that he broke into the condominium because he
“heard something”; and the flashlight, syringe, knife, and loaded firearm
found pursuant to the searches of his body—must be suppressed.
United States v. Soza, 14cr3754 JAP, Doc. 87-1 at 12. Plaintiff maintains that this
finding of violation of Soza’s Fourth Amendment rights in the context of the criminal
case amounts to a “binding holding” such that discovery need not be stayed in this civil
action. See Doc. 24 at 2.
Even if Plaintiff is correct that the Tenth Circuit’s decision constitutes binding
authority here that a constitutional violation occurred, he ignores the second prong of
the qualified immunity inquiry – whether Defendants’ actions violated clearly established
law. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009). Recent decisions from the Supreme
Court and the Tenth Circuit
reiterate the longstanding principle that “clearly established law” should
not be defined “at a high level of generality.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S.
731, 742 (2011). As this Court explained decades ago, the clearly
established law must be “particularized” to the facts of the case. Anderson
v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987). Otherwise, “[p]laintiffs would be
able to convert the rule of qualified immunity . . . into a rule of virtually
unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract
rights.” Id., at 639.
White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 552 (2017); see also Pauly v. White, 874 F.3d 1197,
1223 (10th Cir. 2017) (on remand finding that “[b]ecause there is no case ‘close enough
on point to make the unlawfulness of [Officer White's] actions apparent,’ we conclude
that Officer White is entitled to qualified immunity.”) (citations omitted).
Thus, the Court sees no reason to depart from the general rule that once a
defendant files a dispositive motion asserting qualified immunity, discovery must be
stayed. See Jiron, 392 F.3d at 414 (reasoning that because qualified immunity is an
3
entitlement not to face the burdens of litigation, “[e]ven pretrial matters such as
discovery are to be avoided if possible”); Workman, 985 F.2d at 336 (concluding that
discovery “should not be allowed” until the court makes a requested qualified immunity
determination). Moreover, Plaintiff fails to identify any discovery needed to respond to
the motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.
Wherefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 19)
is granted, and discovery is stayed in this matter pending resolution of Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18).
_______________________________________
UNITED STATES CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
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?