Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03273/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03273-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDY REAL,

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-3273 GEB KJN P

vs.

JAMES WALKER, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On June 22, 2012, defendants filed a notice of interlocutory appeal challenging

this court’s decision to defer consideration of defendants’ qualified immunity defense pending

the clarification of pro se plaintiff’s claims in a significantly narrowed Second Amended

Complaint. (See Findings and Recommendations filed March 2, 2012 (Dkt. No. 43 at 27-28),

adopted by the District Judge on March 30, 2012 (Dkt. No. 47)). 

In support of their notice of appeal, defendants cite two cases authorizing an

immediate interlocutory appeal after a lower court expressly decides a claim of qualified

immunity. See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 2080 (2011) (reversing Ninth Circuit’s

affirmation of district court’s express denial of qualified immunity on motion to dismiss); Lacey

v. Maricopa County, 649 F.3d 1118, (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming in part and reversing in part the

district court’s express dismissal of several qualified immunity defenses); but see rehearing en

1

Case 2:09-cv-03273-GEB-KJN Document 60 Filed 07/02/12 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

banc granted by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 663 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. Nov 10, 2011). In addition,

defendants cite several cases in support of their position that an immediate interlocutory appeal is

available when the district court fails to reach the issue of qualified immunity. This court

construes the cited cases somewhat differently. See Lowe v. Town of Fairland, 143 F.3d 1378,

1381 (10th Cir. 1998) (declined to decide issue of qualified immunity “because the district court

failed to consider it,” and “remanded to the district court for a proper determination in the first

instance”); Helton v. Clements, 787 F.2d 1016, 1017 (5th Cir. 1986) (remanding to the district

court for further consideration after holding that “an order which . . . refuses to rule on a motion

to dismiss based on the defense of governmental immunity is an immediately appealable order,”

provided that the refusal to rule satisfies the three factors identified in Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472

U.S. 511 (1985), viz., that the refusal renders the claim “effectively unreviewable on appeal from

a final judgment;” “conclusively determines the defendant’s claim of right not to stand trial

because there are simply no further steps that can be taken in the District Court to avoid the trial

the defendant maintains is barred;” and the claim of immunity “is conceptually distinct from the

merits of the plaintiff’s claim that his rights have been violated”) (internal quotation and

punctuation marks omitted); Craft v. Wipf, 810 F.2d 170, 173 (8th Cir. 1987) (remanding for

further consideration by district court a qualified immunity defense it failed to consider on

summary judgment); Musso v. Hourigan, 836 F.2d 736, 741 (2d Cir. 1988) (same, applying

Mitchell factors).

In the present case, this court found defendants’ qualified immunity defenses

“premature” and expressly declined to reach them at this early stage of the litigation. (Dkt. No.

43 at 27-8.) The court reasoned that, having dismissed most of the twenty-two claims alleged in

plaintiff’s 120-page First Amended Complaint (including exhibits), and dismissed eight of the

eighteen named defendants, all pursuant to defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiff was entitled

to re-allege and clarify his remaining claims in a Second Amended Complaint before this court

reasonably considered whether plaintiff’s alleged facts establish a cognizable constitutional

2

Case 2:09-cv-03273-GEB-KJN Document 60 Filed 07/02/12 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

violation, and whether the rights at issue were clearly established at the time. Saucier v. Katz,

533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). No discovery has been authorized in this case, nor a dispositive

motion deadline set. In pro se prisoner cases, the court’s consideration of a motion to dismiss is

more akin to a further screening order under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), than a preclusive final

ruling. This court postponed consideration of defendants’ qualified immunity defenses based on

the determination that it created no risk that such defenses would become “effectively

unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment,” Mitchell v. Forsyth, supra, 472 U.S. at 526-27. 

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall not file his Second Amended Complaint until further order of

this court; and

2. Within fourteen days after the filing date of this court, defendants shall inform

this court in writing, with citations to supporting authority, of the following:

a. Whether it is defendants’ position that the filing of their Notice of Appeal

automatically deprives this court of jurisdiction pending a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals?

b. If the answer to “2a” is “no,” do defendants intend to request a stay of this

action in the district court?

c. If the answer to “2a” is “no,” defendants shall also address why, in a pro se

prisoner case, it might not be more appropriate for this court to allow plaintiff to clarify and

narrow his claims in an amended complaint before the court considers whether such claims

allege the violation of clearly established constitutional rights, and then determine whether any

claims survive and whether the court has effectively denied defendants’ qualified immunity

defenses before defendants appeal any such order?

////

////

////

3

Case 2:09-cv-03273-GEB-KJN Document 60 Filed 07/02/12 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 29, 2012

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

real3273.appeal

4

Case 2:09-cv-03273-GEB-KJN Document 60 Filed 07/02/12 Page 4 of 4