KENT v. BROWN

Case No. 6:15-cv-880-Orl-37TBS.

JERMAINE KENT, Plaintiff, v. ZACHARY BROWN, Defendant.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights : Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jermaine Kent, Plaintiff, represented by Paul E. Bross , Bross, Bross, Thomas & Savy, LLC.

Zachary Brown, Defendant, represented by D. Andrew DeBevoise , DeBevoise & Poulton, PA & Erin McCaughey Tueche , DeBevoise & Poulton, PA.


ORDER

ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.

In this action, Plaintiff Jermaine Kent has lodged a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Defendant Zachary Brown for the alleged use of excessive force during Plaintiff's arrest on February 20, 2013. (Doc. 1.) After the close of discovery, Defendant moved for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity and the doctrine espoused in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). (Doc. 60 ("MSJ").) The Court denied the MSJ on May 31, 2017. (Doc. 73 ("May 31 Order").)

Defendant has since sought interlocutory review of the Court's denial of his qualified immunity defense. (Doc. 74 ("Appeal").) In light of the Appeal, Defendant moves to stay this action pending the Eleventh Circuit's ruling. (Doc. 75 ("Motion to Stay").) The Motion to Stay is unopposed. (Id. at 3.)

Because the defense of qualified immunity "protects government officials not only from having to stand trial, but from having to bear the burdens attendant to litigation," a district court may properly stay discovery pending a party's appeal of the denial of such immunity. Blinco, Jr. v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 366 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2004). Such stay is mandatory if the district court determines that the appeal is non-frivolous. Id.

Though this Court disagrees with Defendant's position as to the correctness of the May 31 Order, the Court does not find that his Appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Unopposed Motion for Stay of Case Pending Appeal by Defendant Brown (Doc. 75) is GRANTED. 2. This action is STAYED pending the Eleventh Circuit's ruling on Defendant's interlocutory appeal. 3. All outstanding dates and deadlines in this action are SUSPENDED. 4. The parties are DIRECTED to file a joint report on the status of the appellate proceedings on Thursday, September 7, 2017, and every ninety days thereafter. 5. The parties must also notify the Court as soon as the Eleventh Circuit issues its mandate on Defendant's interlocutory appeal. 6. The Clerk is directed to ADMINSTRATIVELY CLOSE this file.

DONE AND ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases