Hulsey v. Moore

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ABILENE DIVISION
BENJAMIN HULSEY,
Institutional ID No. 81043
Plaintiff,
No. 1:23-CV-00069-H
ANDRE MOORE,
Dcfendant
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
R-ECOMMENDATION OFTHE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
RE AMOT U
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a
recommendation (FCR) that the Court should enter a scheduling order as to Plaintiffs
failure-to-protect claim against Defendant Andre Moore.' See Dkt. No. 79. No objections
were filed. The District Court has reviewed the FCR for plain error. Finding none, the
Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge.
In his Answet, Defendant Moore asserted several affirmative defenses, including the
defense of qualified immunity. See Dkt. No. 55. Thus, as explained below, the Court orders
Defendant Moore to file a motion for summary judgment limited to the afErmative defense
of qualified immunity no later than 60 days from the date of this order.
I The Magistrate Judge summarized Plaintiffs failurc-to-protect claim in the FCR. Sce Dkt. No- 79
at3
Case 1:23-cv-00069-H Document 82 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

l. Motion on Qualified ImmunitY
The Court is mindful of the general rule that "a defendant's entitlement to qualified
immunity should be determined at the earliest possible stage of the litigation." Ramirez v.
Guadarrama,3 F.4th 129, 133 (5th Ct.202l)(citingMitchellt'. Forsyth,472U.S.511'526-27
(1985)); Pearson v. Callahan,555 U.S. 223,231-32 (2009). Ordinarily, that comes at the
motion-to-dismiss stage. Defendant did not, however, file a motion to dismiss before fi"ling
his answer. Thus, the court has not yet had an opportunity to rule on the immunity
question. SeeFed. R. Civ. P. l2(b).
As a result, the Court orders Defendant to file a motion for summary judgment
limited to the issues of qualified immunity and any other af8rmative defenses, no later than
60 days ftom the date of this order. Plaintiffmay fi.le a response to Defendant's motion no
Iater than 30 days from the date shown on the certificate of service attached to the motion.
The motion, any response, and any reply must comply with the requirements of the Local
Civil Rules of the Northem District of Texas.
Altematively, if Defendant believes that his assertion of qualified immunify depends
on resolution of disputed factual mattels, he must frle a notice informing the Court that the
affirmative defense cannot be resolved at this stage and that discovery is necessary. such
notice should be filed as soon as practicable, but no later than 60 days from the date of this
order.
2. Discovery
Discovery will remain stayed pending a ruling on the anticipated motion for
summary judgment or fitrther order from the court. see carswell v. camp,54 F.4th 307, 311
(5th cir. 2022); wicks v. Miss. State Emp't sents., Inc.,41 F.3d 991,994-95 (5th CiI. 1995); see
2
Case 1:23-cv-00069-H Document 82 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

also Backev. IzBlanc,69l F.3d 645,648 (5th Cir. 2012); LionBoulosv. Wilson,834F.2d504,
507 (5th Cir. 1987); Webb r. Livingston, 618 F . App'x 201, 206 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam).
If the claim survives summary judgment on immunity grounds, then the parties are entitled
to all appropriate discovery, even discovery that does not Ielate to the qualified-immunity
defense. See Zantiz v. Seat, 602 F. App'x 154, 159 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Zion Boulos,834
F.2d at 507-08).
When a defendant has asserted a qualified-immunity defense, the Court may, under
certain circumstances, permit limited discovery that is narrowly tailored to uncover facts
that the Court needs to rule on the qualified-immunity defense. See Canwell,54 F.4th at
311-12. On a proper request, the Court may authorize a plaintiff to conduct limited
discovery in order to respond to the qualified-immuniry issues raised in the expected motion
for summary judgment. See Hutcheson v. Dallas Cnty,994F-3d477 ' 481 (5th Cn' 2021)
(providing that ,,[i]t is not enough broadly to seek information that might impeach the
defendants' version ofevents," but "must assert facts that, iftrue, would overcome the
defense."); see also Backe,69l F.3d at 648 (explaining that "this court has established a
careful procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if
further factual development is necessary to ascertain the availabiliry ofthat defense");
Hinojosa v. Liyingston,80T F.3d 657,670 (sth CiI. 2015) (providing that "a district court may
elect the defer-and-discover approach'when the defendant's immunity claim tums at least
partially on a factual question' that must be answered before a ruling can issue"); cf. Nance v.
Meeks,No.3:77-cv'1882-L-BN, 2018 WL 5624202, at *4 (N.D. Tex Aug l' 2018) (finding
that "a court's qualified immunity inquiry at [the summary judgment] stage requires that the
Court ,accept the plaintiffs version of the facts (to the extent leflected by proper summary
3
Case 1:23-cv-00069-H Document 82 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

judgment evidence) as true."') (quoting Haggerty v. Tex. S. Univ.,397 F.3d 653, 655 (5th Cir'
2004) (citations omitted)), rec. accepted,2Ol8 WL 5620469 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2018).
The court will issue a scheduling order goveming discovery, dispositive motions,
and trial, if necessary, after resolving the anticipated motion for summary judgment.
So ordered.
DatedFebruary L ,zozo.
J SLEY HENDRIX
Unitc District Judge
I
Case 1:23-cv-00069-H Document 82 Filed 02/02/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>