Connor Huntley v. Gregory Tindall

USCA11 Case: 25-12102 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12102 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ CONNOR HUNTLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al., Defendants, GREGORY TINDALL, in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:25-cv-01318-MSS-CPT ____________________ USCA11 Case: 25-12102 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12102 Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JILL PRYOR and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Officer Gregory Tindall appeals the denial of his motion for summary judgment against Connor Huntley’s complaint that Tin- dall violated his constitutional right of access to the courts. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Tindall argued that he is entitled to qualified im- munity. In a three-sentence paperless order, the district court de- nied Tindall’s motion as “premature.” It reasoned that “a motion for summary judgment is premature if filed before discovery has taken place.” The district court committed reversible error. We va- cate and remand for further proceedings.

Our precedent required the district court to rule promptly on Tindall’s entitlement to qualified immunity. See Miller v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 129 F.4th 1329 (11th Cir. 2025). “As the Supreme Court has made clear, qualified immunity is an immunity from suit that grants officials an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.” Id. at 1333 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A district court must resolve the de- fense of qualified immunity “at the earliest possible stage in litiga- tion.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). And it must provide a sufficient explanation for its decision “on a claim-by-claim . . . basis” for us to provide meaningful appellate re- view. Id. “We have repeatedly held that a district court errs when it reserves ruling on an official’s entitlement to qualified immun- ity.” Id. USCA11 Case: 25-12102 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 01/05/2026 Page: 3 of 3

25-12102 Opinion of the Court 3 We VACATE the order denying Tindall’s motion for sum- mary judgment and REMAND with instructions to rule on his en- titlement to qualified immunity.