Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00852/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00852-1/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

27

28

1 06cv852-L (RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY L. ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. E. SCRIBNER, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06cv852-L (RBB)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

[DOC. NO. 30]

Plaintiff Jerry L. Armstrong, a state prisoner proceeding pro

se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights complaint on April

10, 2006, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. An Amended Complaint [doc.

no. 6] was filed on December 8, 2006. Defendants filed a Motion to

Dismiss [doc. no. 19] on March 30, 2007, alleging the Amended

Complaint should be dismissed because: (1) Plaintiff failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies; (2) the Amended Complaint

fails to state a claim; and (3) Defendants are entitled to

qualified immunity. (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss 1-2.) The Court took

Defendants’ Motion under submission. (See Mins. May 4, 2007 [doc.

no. 23].) Armstrong has filed two Motions to Amend [doc. nos. 10,

29] and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction [doc. no. 34] that the

Case 3:06-cv-00852-L-RBB Document 36 Filed 07/24/07 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

2 06cv852-L (RBB)

Court is considering in conjunction with Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss.

Plaintiff served defense counsel with interrogatories for all

Defendants on May 24, 2007. (Defs.’ Mem. of P. & A. 2; Hixson

Decl. ¶ 3.) On June 5, 2007, Defendants filed a Motion for a

Protective Order [doc. no. 30]. The Motion requests that the Court

issue a protective order to shield Defendants from the burden of

responding to discovery requests propounded by Armstrong until the

Motion to Dismiss is resolved. (Defs.’ Mem. of P. & A. 2.) 

Plaintiff opposes this Motion, arguing that discovery should not be

stayed while the Motion is pending because discovery may provide

evidence in support of his Motions to Amend the Complaint. (Pl.’s

Opp’n 4.)

Defendants contend in their Motion to Dismiss that Armstrong’s

Amended Complaint must be dismissed because each of the Defendants

is entitled to qualified immunity. (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss 1-2.)

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for

discretionary actions so long as their conduct “does not violate

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457

U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Qualified immunity shields a defendant from

suit for monetary damages, but not from suit for declaratory or

injunctive relief. Hydrick v. Hunter, 449 F.3d 978, 992 (9th Cir.

2006). The Court must dismiss those claims from which Defendants

are immune. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985); 28

U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) (West 2006).

In civil rights cases filed by prisoners, qualified immunity

is to be addressed as early as is practicable in the litigation. 

Case 3:06-cv-00852-L-RBB Document 36 Filed 07/24/07 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

K:\COMMON\BROOKS\CASES\1983\PRISONER\ARMSTRONG852\OrderGrantingProtectiveOrder.wpd 3 06cv852-L (RBB)

See 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1915A(a), (b)(2) (West 2006). “The qualified

immunity defense gives government officials a right not merely to

avoid standing trial, but also to avoid the burdens of ‘such

pretrial matters as discovery . . . [.]’” Ganwich v. Knapp, 319

F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Behrens v. Pelletier, 516

U.S. 299, 308 (1996)). Accordingly, “[u]ntil this threshold

immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed.” 

Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818; see also Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226,

231 (1991); Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526.

The Court has taken Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under

consideration. Until the Court resolves the question of whether

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, discovery is

premature. The Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have made it

clear that discovery is not to be allowed before the Court engages

in this immunity analysis. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion for

Protective Order is GRANTED. All discovery is stayed until further

order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2007 _____________________________

 Ruben B. Brooks

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Judge Lorenz

All Parties of Record

Case 3:06-cv-00852-L-RBB Document 36 Filed 07/24/07 Page 3 of 3