Ricks v. UTMB Doctor et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MARK EUGENE RICKS,
TDCJ #01238188
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. JESSICA KHAN, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-19-cv-587
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION
This case is brought by Mark Eugene Ricks, an inmate in the custody of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. Mr. Ricks alleges that physicians and other medical officials at
the University of Texas Medical Branch violated his Eighth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 when they denied him direct acting antiviral drugs for his Hepatitis C, resulting in
permanent liver damage. (Docket Entry No. 62).1 The defendants have moved to dismiss all claims
except Mr. Ricks’s “treatment-related Eighth Amendment claims against Khan and Pockthall [and
Mr. Ricks’s] policy-related Eighth Amendment claims against Linthicum, Murray, DeShields, and
Moore.” (Docket Entry No. 65 at 3). The defendants have also moved to stay discovery pending
the resolution of their motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. (Docket Entry No. 66). The
court will grant the motion to stay.
1 In his First Amended Complaint, Mr. Ricks also pleaded a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all defendants. (Docket Entry No. 62 ¶¶ 119–126). In his response to the defendants’
motion to dismiss, however, Mr. Ricks states that he “no longer advances any equal protection claim.” (Docket
Entry No. 67 at 6 n.1). Accordingly, the court considers Mr. Ricks’s Fourteenth Amendment claim dismissed as to
all defendants and will enter a separate order to that effect.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 16, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:19-cv-00587 Document 69 Filed 01/16/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
The defendants argue that their assertion of qualified immunity “is a threshold issue that
the court should decide before allowing discovery to proceed.” T.L. v. New Caney Indep. Sch.
Dist., No. CV H-24-1435, 2024 WL 4028726, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2024); (Docket Entry No.
66 at 2–3). The defendants also assert that the case should be stayed as to all claims against all
defendants because all defendants have asserted qualified immunity in the pending motion to
dismiss, though as to only some of Mr. Ricks’s claims. (Docket Entry No. 66 at 2–3).
The Fifth Circuit has held that “when defendants assert qualified immunity in a motion to
dismiss, the district court may not defer ruling on that assertion. It may not permit discovery—
cabined or otherwise—against immunity-asserting defendants before it has determined plaintiffs
have pleaded facts sufficient to overcome the defense.” Carswell v. Camp, 54 F.4th 307, 312 (5th
Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 73, 217 L. Ed. 2d 12 (2023) (internal quotations omitted).
Under this precedent, discovery against all defendants must be stayed until the court rules on their
motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. See T.L., 2024 WL 4028726, at *1.
Mr. Ricks’s decision not to pursue his equal protection claims moots the motion to dismiss
those claims on the basis of qualified immunity. See (Docket Entry No. 65 at 14). As a result, two
defendants—Jessica Khan and Monica Pickthall—do not appear to have remaining immunity
assertions. See id. at 2, 3 n.1, 12–14. Nevertheless, Mr. Ricks’s claims against the other defendants
“are closely related [to] and involve the same facts and events” as his claims against Khan and
Pickthall, such that “discovery against [the other defendants] would necessarily be discovery
against [Khan and Pickthall].” T.L., 2024 WL 4028726, at *1. As a result, the discovery stay also
applies to Khan and Pickthall. See id.
The court grants the motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the defendants’ motion
to dismiss. (Docket Entry No. 66).
Case 4:19-cv-00587 Document 69 Filed 01/16/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
SIGNED on January 16, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
Senior United States District Judge
Case 4:19-cv-00587 Document 69 Filed 01/16/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3