Hensley et al v. Suttles et al

Filing 56

ORDER STAYING CASE. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 03/30/2016. (thh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00193-MR-DLH
TERESA ANN HENSLEY, Administrator of )
the Estate of David Lee Hensley, H.H., a
)
minor, by and through her parent and next )
friend, THERESA ANN HENSLEY as
)
General Guardian, RACHELLE FERGUSON,)
Individually, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA )
EX REL., Estate of David Lee Hensley, H.H.,)
and Rachelle Ferguson,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BOBBY R. SUTTLES, individually and in
)
his official capacity as former Sheriff of
)
Haywood County, LARRY BRYSON,
)
individually and in his official capacity as )
Deputy of the Haywood County Sheriff’s )
Department, DAVID MITCHELL, individually)
and in his official capacity as Patrol
)
Captain of the Haywood County Sheriff’s )
Department, MICHAEL SCOTT PRICE,
)
individually and in his official capacity as )
Lieutenant of the Haywood County Sheriff’s)
Department, KEITH ALLEN BEASLEY,
)
individually and in his official capacity as )
Deputy Sheriff of the Haywood County
)
Sheriff’s Department, THE OHIO
)
CASUALTY INSURANCY COMPANY, and )
WEST AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, )
Corporate sureties on the official bond of )
the Sheriff of Haywood County,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________)

ORDER OF STAY

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants’ motion for stay
pending appeal. [Doc. 52].
On March 9, 2016, the Court entered an Order granting in part and
denying in part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. [Doc. 50]. In
their summary judgment motion, all of the law enforcement Defendants had
argued that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law based upon
their assertion of qualified immunity. As stated in the Order, the Court denied
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendants Price and
Beasley on Plaintiffs’ First, Third, Fourth, Sixth and Eight Causes of Action
and as to Defendants The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company and West
American Insurance Company on Plaintiffs’ Seventh Cause of Action. [Id.].
The Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to all of
Plaintiffs’ claims asserted against Defendants Suttles, Bryson, and Mitchell
as well as to the Plaintiffs’ Second Cause of Action asserted against all
Defendants. [Id.].
Defendants filed a notice of appeal on March 18, 2016. [Doc. 52 at 3].
Defendants are seeking appellate review of this Court’s Order denying their
summary judgment motion on qualified immunity grounds.

[Id.].

The

defense of qualified immunity is designed not only to protect government
officials from liability for money damages, but also to allow officials to avoid
2

the burdens attendant to a lawsuit. Qualified immunity, therefore, “is
immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.”

Mitchell v.

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). As such, questions of law pertaining to
qualified immunity are immediately appealable. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S.
304 (1995); Parrish v. Cleveland, 372 F.3d 294, 301 (4th Cir. 2004). But
here, whether Defendants Price and Beasley are entitled to qualified
immunity is dependent upon factual findings which ultimately must be made
by a jury. Even though Defendants Price and Beasley are appealing the
Court’s qualified immunity ruling, they concede as much: “Defendants do
not challenge the Court’s findings [sic] as to [the] Factual Background but
rather contend that the findings and the evidence of record do not support
the legal conclusions made by the Court.” [Doc. 53 at 4].1 As such, at least
part of this case is clearly not subject to such appeal. However, staying this
matter pending the Fourth Circuit’s resolution of the appeal by Defendants
Price and Beasley will best serve the interests of judicial economy by this
Court having to conduct only one jury trial and otherwise avoiding piecemeal
litigation. Defendants represent to the Court that Plaintiffs do not oppose

1

On a motion for summary judgment the Court makes no findings of fact. The
determination is only of the factual scenario that would be supported by the forecast of
evidence taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Apparently the
appealing Defendants contend that such factual scenario, as a matter of law, would still
entitle them to a dismissal of this case based on qualified immunity.

3

their motion to stay. [Doc. 52 at 4]. For these reasons, the Court will grant
the Defendants’ stay motion and hold this case in abeyance until the
resolution of their appeal by the Fourth Circuit.
Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that this action is hereby
STAYED until further Order of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: March 30, 2016

4