Hughbanks v. Dooley et al

Filing 115

ORDER granting stay of discovery; denying 95 Motion to Compel. Signed by Chief Judge Karen E. Schreier on 8/10/2011. (KC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KEVIN L. HUGHBANKS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROBERT DOOLEY, Warden, Mike
Durfee State Prison, a/k/a Bob
Dooley;
TIM REISCH, Cabinet Secretary,
SD DOC;
SUSAN JACOBS, Associate
Warden, Mike Durfee State Prison;
TAMI DEJONG, Unit Coordinator,
MDSP;
RANDY STEVENS, Sco. Property
Officer, MDSP; and
NICHOLE ST. PIERRE, Sco.
Property Officer, MDSP,
Defendants.

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

Civ. 10-4064-KES

ORDER GRANTING STAY OF
DISCOVERY AND DENYING
MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff, Kevin L. Hughbanks, has filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit.
Hughbanks is incarcerated at the Mike Durfee State Prison in Springfield,
South Dakota. Hughbanks alleges three claims: (1) that the prison policy
allowing the rejection of bulk mail without a rejection notice being provided
to the prisoner or publisher is unconstitutional; (2) that prison officials
unconstitutionally denied him books entitled Dirty Spanish and The
Quotable Bitch; and (3) that correctional officer Randy Stevens violated the
Eighth Amendment by making derogatory remarks about him in front of

other inmates. Hughbanks now moves to compel discovery pursuant to Rule
37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 37.1 of the District of
South Dakota Civil Local Rules of Practice. Defendants oppose his motion
and ask that discovery be stayed until the issue of qualified immunity is
resolved.
DISCUSSION
All of Hughbanks’s claims, other than his claims for prospective relief,
are subject to defendants’ qualified immunity defense. Qualified immunity
protects prison officials from litigation itself, not merely liability. Mitchell v.
Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (noting that the doctrine of qualified
immunity provides “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to
liability”). This immunity from suit applies to discovery because it “can be
peculiarly disruptive of effective government.” Id. (internal citations omitted).
Qualified immunity protects government officials from the burdens of broad
discovery. Wilson v. Northcutt, 441 F.3d 586, 590 (8th Cir. 2006). In this
case, Hughbanks has submitted 24 separate requests for the production of
documents, sent interrogatories to each named defendant, and filed six
motions for preliminary restraining orders and a number of other
miscellaneous motions.
Defendants currently have a motion for summary judgment pending,
in which they assert a qualified immunity defense. “The purpose in moving

2

for summary judgment, under the privilege of qualified immunity, is to avoid
having government officers subjected to the expense and delay of discovery.”
Fitzgerald v. Patrick, 927 F.2d 1037, 1039 (8th Cir. 1991). “Both the
Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit have “repeatedly stressed the
importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in
litigation.” O’Neil v. City of Iowa City, 496 F.3d 915, 917 (8th Cir. 2007).
Because qualified immunity protects public officials from discovery,
defendants’ motion for a protective order and stay of discovery is granted.
Thus, defendants need not respond to future motions or discovery requests
unless instructed by the court. Because defendants’ request for a stay of
discovery is granted, Hughbanks’s motion to compel is denied. Therefore, it
is
ORDERED that defendants’ request for a stay of discovery is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hughbanks’s motion to compel
(Docket 95) is denied.
Dated August 10, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
CHIEF JUDGE

3