Cooks v. Barron et al

Filing 65

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL denying 50 Motion to Compel; denying 51 Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs motions to compel (D.E. 50, 51) are denied without prejudice. If plaintiffs claims survive summary judgment, he may renew his discovery requests at that time. (Signed by Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington) Parties notified.(bcortez, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
ANTHONY COOKS,
Plaintiff,
VS.
OSCAR BARRON, et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. C-10-332

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL
This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have
filed their motion for summary judgment, asserting their defense of qualified immunity
(D.E. 55). Pending are plaintiff’s motions to compel (D.E. 50, 51).
Plaintiff alleges in this case that defendant Barron sexually assaulted him, and that
the remaining defendants failed to protect him from the assault. In his motions to
compel, plaintiff seeks the criminal and employment records of the defendants.
Defendants objected on grounds of qualified immunity.
The doctrine of qualified immunity affords protection against individual liability
for civil damages to officials “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established
statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S.

, 129 S. Ct. 808, 815 (January 21, 2009) (quoting

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). When a defendant invokes the defense
of qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate the inapplicability
of the defense. McClendon v. City of Columbia, 305 F.3d 314, 323 (5th Cir. 2002) (en

1/2

banc). To discharge this burden, the plaintiff must satisfy a two-prong test.” Atteberry v
.Nocana Gen. Hosp., 430 F.3d 245, 251-52 (5th Cir. 2005). First he must claim that the
defendants committed a constitutional violation under current law. Id. (citation omitted).
Second, he must claim that defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable in light of
the law that was clearly established at the time of the actions complained of. Id.
Discovery at this stage of the case is limited to qualified immunity issues. The
defendants’ criminal and employment histories are not relevant to the qualified immunity
analysis.
Plaintiff’s motions to compel (D.E. 50, 51) are denied without prejudice. If
plaintiff’s claims survive summary judgment, he may renew his discovery requests at that
time.
ORDERED this 10th day of June, 2011.

___________________________________
B. JANICE ELLINGTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2/2