1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

WENDY TIPPITT, AS THE 

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF 

TIMOTHY MICHAEL RANDALL;

Plaintiff,

v. 

SERGEANT SHANE IVERSEN, 

UNKNOWN OFFICER, RUSK COUNTY, 

TEXAS,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23-CV-00515-JDK

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court is Defendant Sergeant Shane Iversen’s motion to limit discovery to the 

issue of qualified immunity. (Doc. No. 32.) Plaintiff filed a response in opposition (Doc. No. 36) 

to which Defendant filed a reply (Doc. No. 39). The court held a hearing on the motion on June 

20, 2024. As set forth herein, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motion (Doc. No. 32). 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Wendy Tippitt filed this action on behalf of her deceased son, Timothy Randall, 

against Defendants Iversen and Unknown Officer pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful arrest 

and excessive force during a traffic stop that resulted in Mr. Randall’s death. (Doc. No. 1.) 

Thereafter, Defendant Iversen filed a motion to dismiss asserting the defense of qualified 

immunity. (Doc. No. 11.) The court granted the motion with respect to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for 

unlawful detention and denied the motion as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for unlawful arrest and 

excessive use of force. (Doc. Nos. 15, 18.) Defendant did not immediately appeal the court’s ruling 

on qualified immunity at the pleading stage and instead filed the instant motion to limit discovery 

Case 6:23-cv-00515-JDK-JDL Document 43 Filed 06/24/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 202
2

to the issue of qualified immunity. (Doc. No. 32.) The matter has been fully briefed, and the court 

held a hearing on the issue of whether an abbreviated scheduling order should be issued, limiting

discovery to qualified immunity. 

DISCUSSION

Qualified immunity means immunity from suit, not just immunity from liability. Pearson 

v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 237 (2009). Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit has held that a defendant’s 

entitlement to qualified immunity should be determined at the earliest possible stage of litigation. 

Carswell v. Camp, 54 F.4th 307, 310 (5th Cir. 2022). To ensure defendants are not burdened by 

pretrial discovery after invoking this defense, a district court may “ban discovery at ... [the] 

pleading stage and may limit any necessary discovery to the defense of qualified immunity.” Backe 

v. LeBlanc, 691 F.3d 645, 648–49 (5th Cir. 2012). It is appropriate to limit discovery to the qualified 

immunity issue if: (1) resolution of that issue turns on disputed facts; and (2) the court requires 

further clarification to resolve those factual disputes. Lion Boulos v. Wilson, 834 F.2d 504, 507–08 

(5th Cir. 1987).

In this case, the parties have presented the video footage from Sergeant Iversen’s dash 

camera and body camera to aid in the court’s resolution of the issue to limit discovery. Plaintiff 

maintains that the court need not look beyond the videos to resolve the issue of qualified immunity 

because the videos plainly show that Sergeant Iversen is not entitled to qualified immunity. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff contends that the court should deny Defendant’s motion. Defendant 

maintains that in order to resolve the issue of qualified immunity, the court must also know what 

Sergeant Iversen knew at the time of the use of force. Defendant further contends that expert 

testimony would be useful to the court’s resolution of the issue of qualified immunity. 

Case 6:23-cv-00515-JDK-JDL Document 43 Filed 06/24/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 203
3

Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate 

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have 

known.” Jennings v. Patton, 644 F.3d 297, 300 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555

U.S. 223 (2009)). The court has already determined that Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts to 

plausibly overcome the defense of qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s claims for unlawful arrest 

and excessive use of force. The court now has the benefit of the video footage which provides 

direct evidence of what actually occurred with respect to Plaintiff’s claims. The court agrees that 

the video goes a long way towards resolving the issue of qualified immunity, and indeed it is this 

court’s duty to resolve that issue at the earliest opportunity. Carswell, 54 F.4th at 310. If the court 

can resolve the issue solely based upon the video footage, then it would be appropriate for the 

court to deny Defendant’s motion. But, where resolution of that issue turns on disputed facts and 

the court requires further clarification to resolve those factual disputes, discovery should be 

limited. Lion Boulos, 834 F.2d at 507–08. 

Here, the question before the court regarding qualified immunity turns largely on whether 

Defendant Iversen’s use of force in discharging his weapon and killing Mr. Randall was a 

reasonable use of force under the circumstances. See Hamilton v. Kindred, 845 F.3d 659, 662 (5th 

Cir. 2017). At the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the use of force was excessive to the need 

and objectively unreasonable because the video shows Mr. Randall stating that he was unarmed, 

getting thrown to the ground by Officer Iversen, and getting fatally shot by Officer Iversen as he 

was attempting to flee. Defendant’s counsel argued that it has been, and remains to be, Defendant 

Iversen’s position that he felt what he believed to be a weapon on Mr. Randall, which turned out 

to be a methamphetamine pipe. Plaintiff’s counsel disputes that there is any evidence that a 

methamphetamine pipe was recovered from Mr. Randall. This resolution of the issue of qualified 

Case 6:23-cv-00515-JDK-JDL Document 43 Filed 06/24/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 204
4

immunity turns on this factual dispute because the reasonableness of the use of force inevitably 

turns on whether Sergeant Iversen perceived that Mr. Randall was armed. See Valencia v. Davis, 

836 F. App’x 292, 299 (5th Cir. 2020) (discussing excessive force cases in the context of resolving 

the issue of qualified immunity based upon whether an officer perceived that a suspect was armed). 

At present, the court does not have the benefit of the full record before it on this point and indeed 

is in need of further clarification to resolve this dispute—namely whether there is any evidence 

that drugs, drug paraphernalia, or any other items were recovered from the scene. Thus, in order 

for the court to resolve the issue of qualified immunity at the earliest stage possible, the court 

agrees that a truncated discovery period related to this issue is appropriate. See Asante-Chioke v. 

Dowdle, No. 23-30694, 2024 WL 2842206, at *5 (5th Cir. June 5, 2024) (remanding and directing 

the district court to limit discovery to uncover only the facts necessary to rule on qualified 

immunity in a case where decedent was shot thirty-six times by officers). 

Defendant has proposed a relatively short period of time to complete this discovery and 

put the issue before the court. Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s proposed dates. Plaintiff has 

raised the desire to amend the complaint and the court has set a separate deadline to consider 

amendment, which will be taken up accordingly. At present, the court finds it appropriate to 

proceed with a limited schedule on the claims presently before it. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to limit discovery to the issue of qualified immunity 

(Doc. No. 32) is GRANTED. The court sets the following abbreviated schedule in this matter: 

September 9, 2024 Fact Discovery Deadline (as to qualified 

immunity)

September 9, 2024 Plaintiff’s Expert Witness Report Deadline 

(limited to qualified immunity)

September 23, 2024 Defendant’s Expert Report Deadline (limited 

to qualified immunity)

Case 6:23-cv-00515-JDK-JDL Document 43 Filed 06/24/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 205
5

November 18, 2024 Dispositive Motion Deadline. Deadline to file 

a motion for summary judgment limited to the 

issue of qualified immunity. Motions shall 

comply with Local Rule CV-56 and Local Rule 

CV-7. Motions to extend page limits will only 

be granted in exceptional circumstances.

Any request to modify the deadlines set forth herein shall be made by motion to the court.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24th day of June, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00515-JDK-JDL Document 43 Filed 06/24/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 206