Brandon Backe v. Steven LeBlanc
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17245
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Appellants LeBlanc and Wiley seek review of a district court order permitting general discovery without resolving qualified immunity defenses.
- District court held immunities defense premature and denied dismissal pending discovery.
- Alleged incident occurred at a bar near the San Luis Resort on Galveston Island in the early hours of Oct. 4–5, 2008, involving police use of force.
- Plaintiffs allege a prolonged history of police brutality forming a city policy or custom, and that LeBlanc and Wiley authorized or ratified this policy and failed to train officers.
- Only the incident and alleged policy are pleaded; LeBlanc and Wiley argue the district court abused its discretion by not ruling on immunity before discovery.
- Court vacates and remands, directing adherence to established procedures for immunity-discovery timing (Lion Boulos, Helton, Wicks).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review the district order on immunity | LeBlanc/Wiley contend the order improperly withholds immunity ruling. | District court order is not a final or reviewable immunity ruling. | Court has jurisdiction to review and vacate/remand. |
| Whether immunity should be addressed before discovery | Immunity should be resolved early; discovery should be narrowly tailored. | Discovery is needed to determine if immunity applies. | District court abused discretion; must rule on immunity or tailor discovery. |
| Whether discovery was properly tailored to immunity considerations | Discovery should uncover only facts necessary to resolve immunity. | Broad discovery permissible to flesh out claims. | Order failed to narrowly tailor discovery. |
| Whether the denial of immunity is reviewable under the collateral-order doctrine | Immunity denial constitutes an immediately appealable interlocutory order. | Discovery-only or non-final orders are not appealable. | Collateral-order framework applies; district court’s order reviewable and remandable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (immunity is immunity from suit, not liability; protective prerogative before discovery)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (denial of qualified immunity may be appealed immediately)
- Wicks v. Miss. State Emp’t Servs., 41 F.3d 991 (5th Cir. 1995) (limits discovery to narrowly tailored needs to resolve immunity)
- Lion Boulos v. Wilson, 834 F.2d 504 (5th Cir. 1987) (establishes narrowly tailored discovery procedures for immunity cases)
- Helton v. Clements, 787 F.2d 1016 (5th Cir. 1986) (protects officials from pretrial discovery pending immunity ruling)
- Edwards v. Cass Cnty., Tex., 919 F.2d 273 (5th Cir. 1990) (jurisdictional review of interlocutory immunity decisions)