Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-01837/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-01837-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dillon Rock,

Plaintiff,

v. 

N. Cummings, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-20-01837-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

On July 3, 2023, the Court issued an order resolving Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment. (Doc. 84.) As for Defendants Cummings, McCarthy, Preston, Torres, 

and White, summary judgment was granted in full. (Id.) As for Defendant Miller, the 

Court concluded that although he was entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s 

excessive force claim predicated on the initial decision to release Toby, he was not entitled 

to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s excessive force claim predicated on a “duration and 

encouragement” theory. (Id. at 50.) 

On July 17, 2023, Defendant Miller filed a notice of interlocutory appeal. (Doc. 

87.) The notice only applies to “that part of the . . . July 3, 2023 Order denying Miller’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment, in part, on the issue of qualified immunity.” (Id. at 1.)

On July 24, 2023, Defendant Miller filed a motion “to stay further proceedings in 

this matter pending the outcome of his Interlocutory Appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals from the denial of qualified immunity.” (Doc. 89 at 1.) The motion explains 

that, under Ninth Circuit law, “[a]bsent a certification that an appeal is frivolous, the district 

Case 2:20-cv-01837-DWL Document 93 Filed 08/09/23 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

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

court is automatically divested of jurisdiction to proceed with trial pending appeal in regard 

to the particular issues involved in that appeal.” (Id. at 4.) The motion further states that 

although “[i]t is not the responsibility of Defendant Miller to seek a certification that his 

appeal is frivolous . . . [he] will take this opportunity to discuss the frivolous standard. 

Miller’s interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity raises substantial issues 

which will allow the appellate court to determine whether constitutionally prohibited 

conduct, or the violation of clearly established constitutional principles, are sufficiently 

raised by the facts contained in the Rule 56 filings. These are issues that may be properly 

raised and decided on appeal and, as convinced as this Court may be as to the correctness 

of its decision, are subject to differing views at the appellate level.” (Id. at 5.)

On August 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed two documents: (1) a notice of cross-appeal (Doc. 

90); and (2) a Rule 54(b) request for entry of judgment as to all of the claims that were 

dismissed in the summary judgment ruling, including one of the excessive force claims 

against Defendant Miller (Doc. 91). However, neither filing addresses Defendant Miller’s 

stay request, and the time to respond to that request has now expired. 

Under LRCiv 7.2(i), Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant Miller’s stay request 

means the Court may treat the request as unopposed and grant it summarily. The Court 

will do so here, with the clarification that the stay only applies to Plaintiff’s excessive force 

claim against Defendant Miller predicated on a “duration and encouragement” theory—

because that claim is the sole subject of Defendant Miller’s interlocutory appeal—and does 

not interfere with the Court’s jurisdiction to resolve Plaintiff’s Rule 54(b) motion, which 

is not yet fully briefed and remains pending. See generally Leibel v. City of Buckeye, 382 

F. Supp. 3d 909, 912-13 & n.1 (D. Ariz. 2019) (when a defendant pursues an interlocutory 

appeal of the denial of qualified immunity, the automatic stay only applies to “the particular 

issues involved in the appeal” and the district court is not divested of jurisdiction “to 

address aspects of the case that are not the subject of the appeal”) (citations and internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

...

Case 2:20-cv-01837-DWL Document 93 Filed 08/09/23 Page 2 of 3
- 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

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Miller’s motion to stay (Doc. 89) is granted. The Court is 

divested of jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant Miller 

predicated on a “duration and encouragement” theory, and all proceedings related to that 

claim are stayed.

2. The stay does not apply to other aspects of this case, including Plaintiff’s 

pending Rule 54(b) motion.

Dated this 9th day of August, 2023.

Case 2:20-cv-01837-DWL Document 93 Filed 08/09/23 Page 3 of 3