Hodge v. Fluke

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALEXANDER HODGE, 4:19-CV-04189-LLP Plaintiff, vs. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY BRENT FLUKE, REBECCA SCHIEFFER, KRIS VENODSEL, LT. LUCERO, MR. LOEWE, TE ARCHAMBEAU, TIFFANY VOIGT, TAMMY DEJONG, UNKNOWN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS EMPLOYEES, Defendants.

Plaintiff, Alexander Hodge, filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Doc. 1. Defendants move to stay discovery until this Court resolves the forthcoming motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Doc. 15. Defendants also seek an extension of days from the entry of this Order to file their motion for summary judgment. Id. “Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, not simply from liability” and protects officials from pretrial discovery. Janis v. Biesheuvel, 428 F.3d 795, 800 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)). “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526 (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). Because Defendants claim they are filing a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, staying discovery is appropriate. Defendants’ motion to stay discovery is granted. Defendants must file their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity on or before April 9, 2021.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. That Defendants’ motion to stay, Doc. 15, is granted.

2. That Defendants must file their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and supporting documents on or before April 9, 2021.

Dated this 11th day of March, 2021.

BY THE COURT: ATTEST: (Jasna Ufticox MATTHEW W. THELEN, CLERK Lawrence L. Piersol Ue. / () United States District Judge