Hernandez v. State of Texas, TDCJ-CID et al

Filing 71

AMENDED MEMORANDUM ORDER. It is ordered that the defendants' Motion for Rule 7(a) Reply is granted. Plaintiff will have twenty (20) days from entry of this order to file a Rule 7(a) Reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin on 2/23/12. (mrp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
§
FLORENCIO HERNANDEZ
§
VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-55
§

STATE OF TEXAS, ET AL.
§
AMENDED MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the court is Defendants Gordon and Gilmore’s Second Motion to Dismiss,
or in the alternative, Motion for Rule 7(a) Reply (docket entry no. 67). The court has reviewed
the motion, the pleadings on file, and the applicable law. After careful consideration, the court
finds that defendant’s Motion for Rule 7(a) Reply should be granted. Defendants assert the
defense of qualified immunity. Once a defense of qualified immunity is raised, the burden shifts
to the plaintiff to demonstrate the defense does not apply. Atteberry v. Nocona Gen. Hosp., 430
F.3d 245, 253 (5th Cir. 2005). This heightened pleading associated with § 1983 claims “requires
allegations of fact focusing specifically on the conduct of the individual who caused the
plaintiff’s injury.” Reyes v. Sazan, 168 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff shall provide
defendants Gordon and Gilmore with specific details concerning the acts, omission, and/or
conduct that makes them personally liable for depriving plaintiff of his constitutionally protected
rights. It is, therefore,
ORDERED that defendants’ Motion for Rule 7(a) Reply is GRANTED. Plaintiff will
have twenty (20) days from entry of this order to file a Rule 7(a) Reply.
Hello This is a Test
SIGNED this 23 day of February
, 2012.

KEITH F. GIBLIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE