MARY HUDDLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 88-3130 JHG RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et al.. Defendants.
Respectfully submitted,
//s// Jay B. Stephens
JAY B. STEPHENS DC Bar #177840
United States Attorney/s/ John D. Bates
JOHN D. BATES DC Bar #934927.
Assistant United States Attorney
MICHAEL F.. MARTINEZ, DC Bar #347310
Assistant United States Attorney
MARY HUDDLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 88-3130 JHG RONALD WILSON REAGAN, et al.. Defendants.
1/ Plaintiffs also sued the District of Columbia and one D.C. official
2/ Plaintiffs did not file this letter or a corresponding discovery request with the Court. A copy of Mr. Thomas' letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 for the Court's convenience.
3/ AUSA Bates' letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. A letter was sent rather than moving at that time for a Protective Order because plaintiffs had not filed their discovery requests. The federal defendants also hoped to resolve the issue without having to involve the Court needlessly in this issue.
The [qualified immunity] entitlement is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526-27 (l985)(emphasis in original).
Thus, as outlined in our earlier order, we think the proper procedure for the district court to follow at this juncture is first to decide whether there are any material facts in dispute that are necessary to its legal conclusion that qualified immunity lies. If no material facts are in dispute and on the basis of the undisputed facts it can make its decision on qualified immunity, it should do so. Likewise, if material facts are in dispute, but looking at those facts "in the light most favorable to [Fludd]..., drawing all inferences most favorable to that party," id., it can still decide that immunity lies it may grant summary judgment for the defendants. But if, considering the undisputed facts and/or the disputed facts in the light most favorable to Fludd, it cannot find, as a matter of law, that defendants
violated no clearly established constitutional right of the plaintiff, summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity is inappropriate, and the parties should be afforded the opportunity to establish the factual predicates for their contentions by discovery and trial. Id. at 554. That is precisely the procedure the federal defendants contemplate and have urged in this case. Until that process has run its course and this Court has decided the immunity defenses, no discovery should be permitted.
Respectfully submitted,
//s// Jay B. Stephens
JAY B. STEPHENS, DC Bar #177840
United States Attorney//s// John D. Bates
JOHN D. BATES, DC Bar #934927
Assistant United States Attorney//s// Michael L. Martinez
MICHAEL L. MARTINEZ, DC Bar #347310
Assistant United States Attorneys
WILLIAM THOMAS
1440 N Street, NW.
#410
Washington, D.C. 20005ARTHUR BURGER
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Third Floor, District Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
Washington, D.C. 20004//s// Michael L. Martinez
MICHAEL L. MARTINEZ, DC Bar #347310
Assistant United States Attorney
Judiciary Center Building
555 4th Street, NW. Room 4810
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 272-9195