Case: 21-10171 Document: 00516361295 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 17, 2022 No. 21-10171 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Gwendolyn Carswell, individually and as dependent administrator of and on behalf of The Estate of Gary Valdez Lynch III and Gary Valdez Lynch III’s Heirs at Law, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus George A. Camp; Jana R. Campbell; Helen M. Landers; Kenneth R. Marriott; Kolbee A. Perdue; Teri J. Robinson; Vi N. Wells; Scotty D. York, Defendants—Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas 3:20-cv-2935 Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Andrew S. Oldham, Circuit Judge: The question presented is whether a district court can deny a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity through a boilerplate scheduling order. We hold no. Case: 21-10171 Document: 00516361295 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2022 No. 21-10171 I. Gary Lynch was arrested on an outstanding warrant and booked into the Hunt County, Texas jail on February 12, 2019. Seven days later, because of a gas leak, the jail staff evacuated all prisoners from the facility and temporarily housed them elsewhere. Jail staff held Lynch in the Tarrant County jail while repairs occurred and returned him to the Hunt County facility on the evening of February 22. The next morning, Lynch was discovered dead in his cell. Following an autopsy, a doctor concluded Lynch died from aortic valve endocarditis with myocardial abscess. Plaintiff-Appellee Gwendolyn Carswell is Lynch’s mother. She sued Hunt County and numerous county employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). She alleged the individual defendants knew Lynch was suffering from a heart condition but failed to treat him. The individual defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting qualified immunity. On January 25, 2021, the district court denied that motion and entered its “standard QI scheduling order.” That order is the subject of this appeal. It provided, in relevant part: Any pending motions to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity are denied without prejudice. See Shultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1431–34 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc) (qualified immunity must be raised by filing answer). Any defendant desiring to assert qualified immunity who has not already done so by way of answer must file an answer asserting qualified immunity within 14 days of the date of this Order. Except as set forth below, all party discovery is stayed as to any defendant who asserts qualified immunity. Discovery is not stayed as to a defendant asserting qualified immunity as to that person’s capacity as a witness to the extent that there is any other defendant not asserting qualified immunity. 2 Case: 21-10171 Document: 00516361295 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/17/2022 No. 21-10171 The individual defendants complied with the order and filed answers and affirmative defenses. But they also noticed an immediate appeal of the scheduling …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals