USCA11 Case: 24-10247 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 11/19/2024 Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-10247 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

RICHARD YUENGLING, individually and as parent guardian of their minor children, H.Y and P.Y, REBECCA YUENGLING, individually and as parent guardian of their minor children, H.Y and P.Y, Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellees, versus PASCO COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, et al.,

Counter Claimants-Defendants, USCA11 Case: 24-10247 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 11/19/2024 Page: 2 of 5

2 Opinion of the Court 24-10247

ERIC SELTZER, officially asPasco County Sheriff's employees, CHRIS JOYAL, officially as Pasco County Sheriff's employees, SARGENT STACEY JENKINS, officially as Pasco County Sheriff's employees, RACHEL FLOYD, In her official capacity as teacher, PATRICK MARSHELLO, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cv-01787-MSS-SPF ____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Richard and Rebecca Yuengling filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit alleging certain employees of the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office and the Pasco County School Board violated their constitu- tional rights and those of their minor children. The Defendants filed motions to dismiss based both on the Yuenglings’ failure to state claims on which relief could be granted, and the qualified USCA11 Case: 24-10247 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 11/19/2024 Page: 3 of 5

24-10247 Opinion of the Court 3

immunity of the government officials sued in their individual ca- pacities. In an order dated September 29, 2023, the district court granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied them in part. However, the court reserved ruling on the qualified immunity is- sue, stating “Defendants’ claims of qualified immunity are TAKEN UNDER FURTHER ADVISEMENT, and a hearing may be set by separate notice.” The order also stated “[t]he only issue that re- mains to be decided is qualified immunity. The Court will resolve this issue by separate Order.” The September 29 order was unclear as to when the separate order on qualified immunity would be en- tered. Consequently, on November 22, 2023, the Yuenglings filed a Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative for Leave to begin Discovery. The district court granted that motion on December 28, 2023, stating, among other things, the following: In light of the Court’s September 29, 2023 Order re- solving the pending motions to dismiss, this case shall resume in the normal course and the Parties’ discov- ery obligations are REINSTATED. The issue of qual- ified immunity is under advisement and the Court’s assessment of this issue will be aided by further dis- covery. As a result of the December 28, 2023, order, it became clear that the qualified immunity issue was not going to be ruled upon at the motion to dismiss stage. On January 23, 2024, Pasco County Sher- iff’s Office employees Captain Eric Seltzer, Lieutenant Christopher Joyal, Major Stacey Jenkins, and Sergeant Patrick Marshello (Sheriff USCA11 Case: 24-10247 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 11/19/2024 Page: 4 of 5

4 Opinion of the Court 24-10247

Appellants), and Pasco County School Board employees Kurt Browning, Ray Gadd, Carin Hetzler-Nettles, and Rachel Floyd (School Board Appellants) timely appealed the district court’s De- cember 28, 2023, clarification order that reserved ruling on the is- sue of qualified immunity and its determination the qualified im- munity issue will be aided by further discovery. 1 As an initial matter, we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Requiring defendants to further defend from liability while a qual- ified immunity issue remains pending is effectively denying quali- fied immunity. See Howe v. City of Enterprise, 861 F.3d 1300, 1301 (11th Cir. 2017). “To the extent it turns on a question of law, a de- nial of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage is an im- mediately appealable order.” Corbitt v. Vickers, 929 F.3d 1304, 1309 n.2 (11th Cir. 2019). “This is true even if the district court ‘reserved ruling on a defendant’s claim to immunity’ until a later stage of litigation because the ‘immunity is a right not to be subjected to litigation beyond the point at which immunity is asserted.’” Id. (quoting Howe, 861 F.3d at 1302).

1 We reject the Yuenglings’ contention that the appeal is untimely as the Sher-

iff Appellants and School Board Appellants should have appealed after the Sep- tember 29, 2023, order on the motion to dismiss. It was unclear from the lan- guage in that order whether another order on qualified immunity was imme- diately forthcoming, necessitating the Yuenglings’ own motion for clarifica- tion as to the next steps in litigation. It did not become clear until the Decem- ber 28, 2023, clarification order that a ruling on qualified immunity was not occurring before discovery began. USCA11 Case: 24-10247 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 11/19/2024 Page: 5 of 5

24-10247 Opinion of the Court 5

The district court’s deferral of a ruling on qualified immun- ity violates the Sheriff Appellants’ and School Board Appellants’ rights not to be subjected to litigation beyond the point at which immunity is asserted. See Corbitt, 929 F.3d at 1309 n.2; Howe, 861 F.3d at 1302-03. The district court erred by reserving its ruling on qualified immunity and allowing discovery to proceed. The district court’s order dated December 28, 2023, is vacated to the extent it defers ruling on qualified immunity and reinstates the parties’ dis- covery obligations. On remand, the district court should rule on the Sheriff Appellants’ and School Board Appellants’ qualified im- munity defenses. VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.