T hi s or der and j udgm ent i s not bi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce pt under t he * doct r i nes of l aw of t he ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I t m ay be ci t ed, how ever , for i t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 ( eff . D ec. 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) an d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 . 1 (eff. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### D e c e m b e r 7, 2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT J A M E S C A L V IN D Y E R ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, N o. 06- 5085 v. ( D . C. N o. 05 - CV - 24 9- J H P) J I M RA BO N; AR THU R LI GH TLE; C A R L A M . R IC K M A N , Indi vidual s, (N .D . O k la .)

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ants .

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B e f o re , K E L L Y , M c K A Y , andLU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panelhas det erm i ned u n a n im o u s ly to h o n o r th e p a rt ie s ’ r e q u e s t f o r a d e c is io n o n th e b ri e f s w ith o u t a rg u m e n t. See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( f) ; 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s ther efor e or der ed s ubm i tt ed w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. A p p e llee f

iled th is § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n a g a in st v a rio u s O k lah o m a c o rre c tio n s o f f icia ls al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of hi s E i ghth and Fourt eenth A m endmentr i ght s due t o i m pr oper admi ni s tr at i on of hi s pr i s on s ent ence . A ccor di ng t o A ppel l ee, he i ni t i al l yw as char ged w ith a tte m p te dro b b e ry w ith a d a n g e ro u s w e ap o n in v io la tio n o f 2 1 O k la . S ta t. § 8 0 1 .U lti m a tely , h o w e v e r, h e w a s re c h a rg e dw ith a n dp led g u iltyto ro b b e ryw ith f o rc e in v io latio n o f

2 1 O k la. S tat. § 7 9 1 . A p p e llee a ss e rte dth a t th e c o rre c tio n s o f f icia ls f a iled to attr i but e t o hi m s ent ence - r educi ng cr edi t s becaus e theyw er e ca l cul at i ng hi s cr edi t s bas ed on r obberyw i th a dange r ous w eapon r atherthan r obberyw i th for ce. Pur s uantt o 21 O kl a. S ta t. § 1 3 .1 , p e rs o n s c o n v ic te do f , in tera lia , rob b eryw ith a d an g ero u s w ea p o n are r equi r ed t o s erve notl es s than 85 per centof anypr i s on t erm befor e bec om i ng el i gi bl e for p a ro le c o n sid e ra tio n . A p p e llee ’s v a rio u s c o m p lain ts to th e c o rre c tio n s o f f icia ls f a iled to r es ol ve the mi s cal cul at i on. H e s ubs equent l ys oughtr el i ef f r om the s t at e court , w hi ch i s s ued an A m ended Judgm entand Sent ence t o r efl ectthathi s convi ct i on fel l under21 O kl a. St at . § 791, pr om pt i ng r eca l cul at i on of hi s cr edi t s , m odi fi cat i on of hi s s ent ence , and hi s i m m edi at e r el eas e fr om pr i s on. T h is a c tio n w a s f

iled in M a y2 0 0 5 , se e k in g d a m a g e s f o r A p p e llan ts’ a lleg e d ly uncons t i tut i onal act s . I n J une 2005, A ppel l ant s fi l ed thei rr es pect i ve mot i ons for su m m a ryju d g m e n t as se rtin g q u a lifie dim m u n ity . In Ja n u a ry2 0 0 6 , the d istric t co u rt h e ld a s chedul i ng confe r ence atw hi ch a s chedul i ng or derw as i m pos ed thats etdi s coveryand d ispo sit ive m o ti o n d ea d li n es, am o n g o thers. A p p ell an ts th en m o v ed to stayd isco v ery unt i l a rul i ng on the mot i ons fors um m aryj udgm entw as i s s ued. O n M ar ch 30, 2006, the di s tr i ctcourti s s ued a mi nut e or ders tr i ki ng the pendi ng s um m aryj udgm entm ot i ons , t o be re u rg e dc o n sis ten t w ith th e sc h e d u lin g o rd e r, an df in d in g th e m o tio n to sta ym o o t. A p p e llan ts a rg u e o n ap p e a l th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre din re f u sin g to a d d re ss th e ir re s p e c tiv e q u a lif

ie dim m u n ity m o tio n s a n dth a t th is re f u s a l is im m e d ia te ly ap p e a la b le . A ppel l ee ar gues thatbecaus e the di s tr i ctcourthas noty etrul ed on the i s s ue of qua l i fi edim m u n ity, th e is s u e is n o t r ip e f o r a p p e a l. O urdeci s i ons i n W

orkm an v. Jordan , 958 F. 2d 332 ( 10th C i r . 1992) , and Low e v. Tow n of Fai r land, O kla. , 143 F. 3d 1378 ( 10th C i r . 1998) , m ake c l earthata di s tr i ct c o u rt’s p o stp o n e m e n t o f o r f a ilu re to ru le o n aqu a lifie dim m u n ityd e f e n se is im m e d iate ly appea l abl e. T hi s r es ul ti s dr i ven bythe purpos e behi nd qual i fi ed i m m uni ty , w hi ch pr ot ect s an off

i ci al notonl yfr om l i abi l i ty , butal s o “fr om the or di narybur dens of l i t i gat i on, i ncl udi ng far - r angi ng di s covery . ” W orkm an , 958 F. 2d at335 ( not i ng the ap p ro p ria te d isc o v e rylim itatio n s th a t d istric t co u rts im p o se w h e n q u a lifie dim m u n ity m o tio n s a re o u ts ta n d in g ). A c c o rd in g ly, w e m a yp ro p e rl ytu rn to th e m e ri ts . T hes e s ame tw o cas es , how ever , al s o m ake c l earthatthi s courts houl d not det erm i ne w hetherqual i fi ed i m m uni tyexi s t s w her e the di s tr i ctcourthas noty etpas s ed upon the i s s ue. A s poi nt ed outi n W orkm an , alth o u g h A p p e llan ts a sk u s to d e term in e th is is s u e , a n dth is c o u rth a s h o n o re ds u c h a re q u e s t in a t le a s t o n e o th e r c a s e , s ee Lai dley v . Mc C la in , 9 1 4 F .2 d1 3 8 6 , 1 3 9 4 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ), w e b e liev e th e b e tter p ra c tice is to re m a n ds u c h a d e te rm in a tio n to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt , s ee W orkm an , 958 F. 2d at336- 37. A ccor di ngl y , the mi nut e or ders tr i ki ng the pendi ng m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent is REVERSED , and the m att er i s REM AND ED to th e d istric t co u rt f o r im m e d iate con si derat i on of the A pp el l ants ’ r espect i ve q uali fi ed im m un i tychall eng es. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge