Jeffrey Paul Howe v. City of Enterprise
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12038
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jeffrey Howe sued the City of Enterprise and several officers after Officers Partridge and Arias shot him, asserting § 1983 claims (Second, Fourth, Fourteenth Amendments) and state-law malicious prosecution; later added assault, battery, excessive force, trespass, negligence, wantonness, and unlawful seizure claims in an amended complaint.
- Defendants moved to dismiss twice under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting qualified immunity and state sovereign immunity; Howe conceded Fourteenth Amendment claims and several state-law claims, and amended his complaint again as ordered by the district court.
- On March 31, 2016, the district court denied without prejudice the defendants’ second motion to dismiss, instructed Howe to file a second amended complaint, and directed the parties to confer and file a Rule 26(f) discovery plan.
- Defendants appealed, arguing the district court’s order was immediately appealable as a denial of qualified immunity under Mitchell v. Forsyth because it required the parties to proceed with litigation (including Rule 26(f) conferences) before immunity was resolved.
- The Eleventh Circuit examined whether the district court’s order effectively denied immunity by forcing defendants to engage in pre-immunity litigation and settlement discussions, referencing prior Eleventh Circuit decisions addressing similar procedural orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s order is immediately appealable as a denial of qualified immunity | Howe argued the order was not appealable because it merely denied the motion without prejudice and required amendment, not an effective denial of immunity | Defendants argued the order compelled pre-immunity litigation (Rule 26(f) conferences and discovery planning), effectively denying the right not to litigate and thus is appealable under Mitchell | The court held the portions of the order requiring Rule 26(f) conferences and litigation before resolving immunity were effectively a denial of immunity; vacated those parts and remanded so immunity issues be decided before further litigation |
| Whether requiring a plaintiff to amend a complaint and defendants to respond is a litigation burden barred by immunity doctrines | Howe maintained that responding to an amended complaint is ordinary procedure and not the kind of burden immunity protects against | Defendants contended any requirement to proceed with litigation before a ruling on immunity infringes the entitlement not to face litigation | The court clarified directing amendment and allowing defendants to respond is not the immunity-protected burden; only the requirement to engage in discovery planning and settlement discussions before resolving immunity was improper |
| Applicability of Bouchard and Collins precedents to orders reserving immunity rulings | Howe distinguished prior cases where courts required mediation or trial preparation before ruling on immunity | Defendants relied on Bouchard and Collins to show courts cannot force litigation steps that defeat immunity | The court applied Bouchard/Collins reasoning to conclude orders compelling pre-immunity litigation effectively deny immunity and are appealable |
| Proper procedural sequence when immunity is asserted in a dismissal motion | Howe argued the district court retained discretion to manage pretrial scheduling and pleadings | Defendants argued the court must resolve immunity before requiring litigation steps beyond pleading | The court held district courts should decide immunity issues prior to requiring parties to engage in Rule 26(f) conferences or other litigation burdens beyond pleading responses |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (immunity from suit is an entitlement not to face litigation; denial of legal immunity is immediately appealable)
- Bouchard Transp. Co. v. Fla. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 91 F.3d 1445 (11th Cir. 1996) (requiring mediation or other litigation steps before ruling on immunity can effectively deny immunity)
- Collins v. Sch. Bd., 981 F.2d 1203 (11th Cir. 1993) (reserving immunity ruling until trial compels defendants to litigate and undermines immunity)
- Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial; courts should resolve immunity early)