William C. Bennett, AKA John A. Richardson v. Garrison A. Parker, Warden, Robert M. Jackson, Officer, Daniel W. Cooper, Officer

BENNETT, aka John A. C. William

Richardson, Plaintiff-Appellee, PARKER, Warden, M. Robert A.

Garrison Officer, Cooper,

Jackson, Daniel W. Of

ficer, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 88-8939. Appeals, Court

United States Circuit.

Eleventh 25, 1990.

April Gen., Jones, Atty. Office of State

John C. Atlanta, Ga., defendants-appellants. Batson, Ga., Augusta, plain- P. John tiff-appellee. TJOFLAT, Judge,

Before Chief HATCHETT, Judge, and Circuit MORGAN, Judge. Senior Circuit HATCHETT, Judge. Circuit Although jur- issues of intertwined with ap- isdiction severity injury to an peal concerns constitution- required inmate to establish a of excessive use of force. Because al claim in that we find no constitutional violation minimal injury in this case was or non- existent, court’s de- we reverse the district summary judgment on motion of the nial of public officials.

I. FACTS Bennett, Rich- a/k/a John A. William C. ardson, Augusta an inmate at Correctional Institution, Georgia, and Medical pursuant to 42 U.S.C. brought this action Garrison Prison Warden § officers Robert M. Parker and staff Cooper (appellants). and Daniel W. Jackson alleges July that on Cooper approximately p.m., Jackson and up his cell. After instructed to clean cell, Bennett cleaned the Jackson and Coo- go Bennett to to the per refused to allow promised. they as had earlier gymnasium why he Bennett asked Jackson When that it court notified Bennett district gymnasium, The go to to the being allowed motion to dismiss as one treat your goddamn would “You shut replied, Jackson advised Ben- go summary judgment no and you to let mouth,” “I don’t have and summary consequences of a of the Jackson nett where.” Officer goddamn cell, response, him Bennett grabbed motion. of the Bennett out called said, you and five throat, “Let me tell two sworn statements and submitted by the mother-fucker, I inmates. The ass statements from something you black unsworn mouth; against goddamn the claims your court dismissed and tired of district am sick Parker, warden, you.” finding that the claims nigger, I’ve had with furthermore struggle, and him based on the doctrine of began were Bennett to When hands, Cooper court superior. The district respondeat to remove his Jackson asked Ac- cell bars. the motion for against the Bennett denied pushed Bennett, Cooper Bennett it found hit and Jackson for Jackson cording to regarding ex- side of his fact on the left material issues of nightstick that with a dispute. he claims that of force Con- head, eye. use were near the Bennett cessive rejected the later that eve- the district court sequently, sought medical treatment him denied defense. qualified medical staff ning, but eye left is still injury The to his treatment. alleges that he was also

painful. Bennett THE PARTIES OF III.CONTENTIONS proce- during grievance process due denied Cooper contend that the dis- and Jackson dures. by denying their motion trict court erred facts. different state appellants The They argue that summary judgment. Cooper and allege that while Jackson They force, any although they did not use inmates, of the conducting a count they were enti- undisputed facts show that belligerent and demanded Bennett became and, if against Bennett to use force tled began cursing at He go to recreation. used, injured. was not Bennett force a disturbance. creating and the officers issue, that Bennett contends a threshold As down, calm Jack- refused to When Bennett ap- over this jurisdiction has no court of his ordered outside Cooper son and dispute. material facts are peal because Cooper and hallway. Jackson cell into was neces- argues that no force Bennett Bennett, and they never touched state that the circumstances. sary under force a use of they never therefore filed mandatory in inci- report is report. Such IV.ISSUES Although sick force is used. where dents (1) are: the court The issues never went everyday, held Bennett call is over the court has whether reported injury hospital to the summa- denial of resulting from the appeal alleges. he now immunity; judgment based ry behavior, Ben- disorderly of this Because properly (2) whether and in- report for disciplinary received a nett motions for Cooper’s Jackson denied instruc- subordination, to follow failure judgment. of in- the count tions, disruption of guilty to these pleaded Bennett mates. V.DISCUSSION hearing. disciplinary at a charges A. Jurisdiction HISTORY II.PROCEDURAL Supreme Court The States United jurisdic- courts have appellate that the 1983 lawsuit held filed this section Bennett denial of “a district claiming over Georgia tion District the Northern extent immunity, to the claim of his constitu- appellants violated that law, on an issue it turns [and use of through excessive rights an tional within decision’ ‘final an is process. due provide it] and failure force 1291 notwith- meaning U.S.C. § to dismiss filed a motion appellants judgment.” a final standing the absence of immunity. on the defense 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 800, 818, Forsyth, Mitchell v. case, Thus, (1985). (1982). in this 2806, 2817, L.Ed.2d motions for Cooper’s defeat Jackson entitled an official Whether he show Waldrop must judgment, issue law. immunity is an (11th 1030, n. 1 Cir. 1032 violated Evans, F.2d their conduct 871 Nevertheless, rights. has consist See 1989). statutory or constitutional 1030, motion for sum Evans, 1033 denial ently Waldrop held that v. quali claim of on a Cir.1989)(burden proving based constitu- mary judgment (11th of or not a final immunity is Because we plaintiff).1 fied on tional violation the case denied because is if the a der claim failed to establish con- that Bennett hold dispute. in questions violation, turns on rendering immaterial stitutional (11th Urrea, F.2d 765 847 v. jurisdic- Goddard dispute, have in any facts still we Cash, F.2d 836 1318 v. 1988); Williams tion. Wainwright, 810 Cir.1988); Riley v. (11th Cir.1986); Thomp Perry v. (11th Summary Judgment Denial of B. Cir.1986). son, 1093 F.2d 786 summary the denial of On review disputed material facts The existence on judgment based favor not defeat will has suffi- plaintiff a determine whether however, official, when the public aof a constitutional viola- ciently established showing suffi- make a plaintiff “fails tion, for a directed the standard we follow of an ele- the existence to establish cient Rule of Civil Proce- Federal verdict under case, and on [plaintiff’s] ment essential 323, Celotex, 50(a). at 106 477 U.S. dure the burden of will bear [plaintiff] which taken in the If the at facts S.Ct. 2552-53. Catrett, Corp. v. Celotex proof at trial.” do plaintiff not favorable to the light most 2548, 2552, 322, 91 317, 106 S.Ct. U.S. 477 violation, then the a constitutional establish dispute cease (1986). Facts L.Ed.2d 265 granted should be public official facts when to be “material” Brown a matter of law. v. judgment as case. “In prima facie a fails establish Cir.1987). 1187, Smith, 1188 813 genuine ‘no situation, there can a such summary judg- review of the Our fact,’ a since com- any material as to issue immunity plena- is ment on concerning an essen- proof plete failure Evans, F.2d at 1032 n. 871 ry. Waldrop v. party’s nonmoving case element of tial facts immate- all other necessarily renders 322-23, 106 Celotex, 477 U.S. rial.” and Jackson Coo- Bennett contends Thus, such circum- under at 2552. rights his constitutional per violated is entitled to stances, public official force. The of excessive through use law, because the matter of a judgment as against cruel prohibition eighth amendment carry the burden of failed to plaintiff has triggered when punishment is unusual the dismissal of rule facilitates proof. This “unnecessary subjected to prisoner is prior to claims trial. factually unsupported Whitley pain.” infliction and wanton 1078, 319, 312, Albers, 106 S.Ct. U.S. The doctrine (1986) (citations 1084, omit- 89 L.Ed.2d shielding purpose accomplishes a similar in Albers ted). The found Court liability when from civil public officials prisoner of whether determination “does not violate es their conduct pain unnecessary wanton suffered rights statutory or constitutional tablished applied force was turns on “whether have person would reasonable of which a restore effort to maintain good faith 457 U.S. Fitzgerald, known.” Harlow party’s allegations adverse or denials summary judgment, Bennett 1. On motion response, by party’s plead- pleading, the adverse allegations but rely solely could not provided in this violation. or as otherwise ings a constitutional affidavits rule, to establish showing specific facts set forth must When a motion for rule, genuine trial. issue for there is a provided in this supported as made and 56(e). upon the Fed.R.Civ.P. party rest mere an adverse against maintaining order the force used sadistically for maliciously and discipline or Although against Bennett. the affidavits causing harm.” very purpose prisoners to the 320-21, (quoting of other attest fact that 106 S.Ct. at U.S. 1028, (2d Glick, Cooper grabbed Jackson and Johnson pushed v. John Cir.), sub nom. John the throat cert. denied bars, supports 38 L.Ed.2d son, no other evidence his claim Albers, also (1973)). In the Court struck him with a that Officer Jackson forth in guards may factors set Johnson use force adopted nightstick. three Prison determining whether necessary to restore order and need v. Glick the need force: danger- has used excessive guard until disturbances reach not wait force, relationship of the application the proportions responding. for ous of force and the amount the need between management by guards a few of inflicted used, injury the and the extent of prisoners, usually large numbers of Albers, 475 Whitley v. upon prisoner. the gentle the most or tractable of men and at 1085. U.S. at women, may require justify occa- and the degree of intentional sional use of a (11th Smith, F.2d 1187 In v. Brown shove, every push even if force. Not or recently these Cir.1987), used this court unnecessary later in the seem whether a to determine three factors chambers, peace judge’s violates a of use constituted excessive guard’s conduct rights. prisoner’s constitutional needed that force was force. We found of showed that undisputed evidence Glick, v. 481 F.2d at 1033. Deci- Johnson cell to enter his had refused Brown to sions made at the scene of disturbance him to do so. Smith, guard, ordered the degree entitled to a restore order are against Brown’s put his riot baton Smith deference. wall; him an- pinned and neck that a blow to the head Bennett claims putting in officer then assisted Smith other eye left caused considerable near his cir- his cell. Under these Brown back into Yet, medi- long-lasting pain. Bennett’s and cumstances, that the amount we found inju- report contain no of head cal records found justified. We also force used was pain following the treatment for ries or contained Brown’s affidavit that because incident, though daily opportu- had even he inju- of serious conclusory allegation only a assistance. nities to seek medical evidence, supporting ry any other without a motion for directed In order to survive Ac- allegation be discounted. should trial, sup have to Bennett would verdict that Brown suf- cordingly, we concluded by use of force claim of excessive port his most, fered, injury. minimal required by showing injuries,” as “severe according Analyzing case Holmes, 634 v. Shillingford this court Brown, conclude used in we same factors (5th 1981). Norris A F.2d 263 Cir. Unit Cf. a constitu Bennett has not established Columbia, 737 F.2d 1148 v. District of for the use of The need tional violation. (if unjustified, force (D.C.Cir.1984) use of by undisputed evi force lingering pain with immediate substantial a disturbance. that Bennett created dence violation). ill states a constitutional effects incident, plead a result of this As the ex exerted and degree “The of force charges insub disciplinary for guilty ed togeth injury inflicted physical tent ordination, instruc failure to follow for deprivation to a constitutional er amounts tions, count of in disrupting the and for facts must, course, by the determined range of deference give a wide mates. We F.2d at Shillingford, case.” given of a acting preserve disci prison officials prison require that we do not 265. While Smith, 813 security. Brown v. pline and injury, prisoner permanent er sustain F.2d at 1188. beyond injury evidence must offer some Smith, 813 one. Brown relationship a minimal See evaluating between allegations in in (conclusory used, F.2d at 1189 of force we need and the amount absent corrobo- discounted in mate’s affidavit security interest weigh prison's concurring: TJOFLAT, Judge, Chief Cash, ration); Williams cf. (inmate’s bro Cir.1988) elbow reached in the result I concur Thompson, ken); Perry much of agree with today and court alleg after Cir.1986) (prisoner bled separately because I write opinion. court’s head, arms, legs, face, being struck edly our characterization court’s I head). in the sides and kicked our regarding precedent circuit’s of serious Brown, claim Bennett’s As in of a mo- a district to review un- conclusory allegation, only a injury is quali- judgment based tion evidence, medi- any physical supported states: immunity. The court “[T]his fied testimony corroborating records, cal consistently held that denial it. witnesses, discount we therefore on a based Bennett, the struck Cooper If Jackson not a final immunity is claim minimal. injury denied be- if the claim is order a motion with faced When questions turns on the case cause defense of on a at 5. Because ante dispute.” See first should courts cir- surface to continues problem has estab- plaintiff on whether focus say a few to cuit,1 appropriate it I find de- violation a constitutional lished issue. on this words of fact issues material termining whether Generally, unless an issue is certified for can be material issues No present. are interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. fails plaintiff’s evidence dispute where 1292(b) (1982), appeals a court of § violation. a constitutional to establish 1291, jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § CONCLUSION only VI. to review final decisions of the district Gordon, courts. See Flinn v. 775 F.2d of force the amount that conclude We 1551, (11th Cir.1985), denied, 1552 cert. 476 prison’s on appropriate used was 1116, 1972, 106 90 L.Ed.2d U.S. S.Ct. 656 maintaining order and security interests (1986). however, may, We review decisions sustained.2 injuries minimal that, fa- light although most final in in the the sense that viewed Accordingly, Bennett, will not action, the evidence they “finally terminate the cause of to vorable wanton- inference of from, a reasonable support right separable determine claims of pain. of in the infliction to, ness rights and collateral asserted in the action, important too denied reasons, review foregoing For the we hold that jurisdiction independent this court has and that the dis- and too of the cause itself to improperly trict court denied the require appellate defen- that consideration be de summary judgment. dants’ motion for The adjudicated.” ferred until the case is whole decision of the district court is therefore Corp., Indus. Loan Cohen Beneficial reversed, and the case remanded for fur- 541, 546, 1221, 1225-26, 337 69 U.S. S.Ct. proceedings opin- ther consistent with this (1949). 93 L.Ed. 1528 immu ion. nity protects right, defense such a claim of i.e., official, an that of who has acted rea-

REVERSED REMANDED. 1989) original) (emphasis (quoting 2. We leave for another case the decision wheth- Goddard 765, highly provocative language, alleged Urrea, (11th Cir.1988) (John er such as v. son, J., 769 case, proved, may in this dissenting)). render unconsti- Because Horlock conflicted any decisions, tutional force used to see, Goddard, subdue an inmate's panel e.g., with earlier reflexive reaction. 768-69, the case has been voted en 847 F.2d at divergence authority, Circuit, panel banc to resolve the of 1. A finding juris the Eleventh vacated, panel opinion rejection has been see Horlock v. diction to review the immunity case, although Georgia Dep’t defense Human Resources. The facts were in dis settled, pute, recently however, stated disputes that "factual has since been and a motion to do qualified immunity analysis not affect appeal granted, since has been see order of dismiss the analysis 1990; therefore, 28, ‘that validity plaintiffs assumes the the case will not be March banc, version of the facts and then panel opinion examines whether en but the will re reheard Co., support clearly Ridge those facts a claim of estab v. Blue Tele. main vacated. See Dunn ’’ 1989) (en banc). Georgia Dep’t lished law.” Horlock v. Cir. Hu Resources, 388, man 392-93 scope denial of a claim of immu- faith sonably good and in within nity, to the extent it turns on an issue discretionary authority, his or her law,2 is an ‘final decision’ plaintiffs allega- any litigation of avoid meaning within U.S.C. Forsyth, 511, Mitchell v. 472 U.S. tions. Id. 530, 1291....” 105 S.Ct. at 2817. § 2806, 2816, 527-28, L.Ed.2d 105 S.Ct. (1985). is an grants The claimed entitlement pre-trial When the district court suit “immunity ...; like an qualified immunity motion based on de- from if effectively fense, it is lost absolute unquestioned; our erroneously permitted go to tri- case is clearly decision is “final decision” within al.” Id. 526, (emphasis meaning 105 S.Ct. at 2815 of section 1291 in that it termi- review, altogether.3 nates the action original). Consequently, “a district On Second, phrase, "to the extent that the defendant raise his affirma- 2. The Mitchell court's law,” requires on an issue of some it turns explanation. tive defense in his answer and move under Mitchell, of [de- 12(c) “[t]he plead- Fed.R.Civ.P. immunity] turn[ed] fendant Mitchell’s ings. attempt The district court does not it was the date [on whether disputes, determine whether there are factual let wiretaps] authorizing certain warrantless them, only alone resolve but examines unconstitutional," wiretaps such pleadings; grants if 2818, which, 530, 105 S.Ct. at as the Court at stated, alleges only actions that "a reasonable officer id., legal question,” "purely is a lawful,” could have believed see Anderson v. holding reserved a mar- at 2817. The Mitchell 6, 3034, Creighton, 483 U.S. 646 n. however, error, by stating gin (1987), n. 97 L.Ed.2d 523 and denies the claim is an of a defendant’s appealable plaintiff alleges motion if the actions that vio- order "to the extent that it turns final late established law or if the defendant qualifying its hold- on an issue of law.” In so ing, alleges only actions that a reasonable officer Court doubt envisioned a situation the no lawful, Mitchell, could not have believed see 472 court, to answer the where the district purely legal question unable 528, U.S. at 105 S.Ct. at 2816. The defendant because it cannot the may analysis by moving for invoke the same presented identify plaintiff’s basis of the facts 56(b), ruling under Fed.R.Civ.P. allegations, of the its on the merits defers which, immunity presented qualified claim until it is able to iden- if no additional material is (This tify legal question. consideration, and resolve the situa- by will be treated the the court’s Wainwright, Riley tion arose in (11th v. 810 plead- court as a motion for Cir.1986), text.) length discussed at in the Miller, ings. Wright supra & A. § See 5 C. rejection For I submit that a district pre-trial qualified Third, may present the defendant matter out- immunity always defense summary judg- pleadings side the and move for of law. turns on an issue 56(e). ment under Fed.R.Civ.P. The district may qualified A assert his immuni defendant examines the submitted evidence in court then defense, trial, ty prior ways, in one of three light plaintiff in order the most favorable to the require all of which the court to consider an determine whether the defendant is none- First, may issue of law. a defendant move for judgment as a matter of law. theless entitled to 12(b)(6) dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. for failure Inc., Liberty Lobby, U.S. Anderson v. 477 See Barclays Quiller to state a claim. See can/Credit, Inc., v. Ameri 2505, 2511-12, 242, 250-52, L.Ed.2d 106 S.Ct. 91 1067, (11th 1069 (1986). light in the 202 The court considers 1984) ("[A] may under complaint be dismissed fairly all facts most favorable to the allegations 12(b)(6) reveal the own when its Rule regardless the of the inferrable from record— defense, long the so as of an affirmative existence disputes decides existence of —and complaint”), the clearly appears on the face of defense facts, whether, under those defendant’s conduct 1992, 1124, 106 denied, S.Ct. 476 U.S. t. cer clearly established at the time. If violated law Maraio, 1993, 90 (1986); 722 Green L.Ed.2d 673 immunity rejects qualified the district court defense, the Cir.1983) (affirmative 1013, 1019(2d defense F.2d deter- decision rests on the court’s immunity may in Rule be asserted qualified true, facts, if consti- mination that the inferrable 12(b)(6) “complaint itself establish motion when by clearly law the violations of established tute Wright immunity”); C. see also 5 es ... determination, whether in the defendant. That Miller, § and Procedure Federal Practice &A. 56(b) (e) motion for sum- context of a Rule (1969 Supp.1989). The district & at mary judgment, to dismiss for failure a motion complaint whether the to see examines claim, judgment on or a motion for to state a of the reveal the existence allegations themselves and, legal pleadings, un- is a determination whether, defense, i.e., under immunity doctrine, order results der the Cohen collateral alleged, of the facts version most favorable judgment. in an clearly established violate actions defendant's today, 3. Two Mitchell, cases cited the court Williams legal question.” "purely law—a Cash, (11th Cir.1988), Perry 836 F.2d 1318 530, 105 S.Ct. at 2817. at granted, relief can be the de- upon which compromising our may, fear of we without necessarily qualified immunity, fendant plaintiff’s claim jurisdiction, examine court, presented of the facts for under no version directly. If we affirm the district we conduct violate ground affirmance on the did his may base our present any plain- rationale plaintiff failed to law. Our embrace claim, all, underlying the defendant’s consider at rather than on tiff’s but we claim qualified immunity only sup- insofar as its factual entitlement to that claim law es- port immunity his conduct did not violate defendant’s from establishes at the time. tablished suit. Contrary suggestion today, to the court’s problematic jurisdiction becomes Our pre- recognized this circuit has that the court denies exist only when the district immunity disputes in ence of factual such a case does trial motion based on pre- denial of a A district court’s not affect our defense. and has fre motion, to dismiss as a motion quently analysis trial such followed the outlined a claim or a motion See, for failure to state Supreme e.g., Court Mitchell. pleadings or for judgment on the Woodard, 311, McDaniel v. F.2d 313— not a reviewable judgment, generally (11th Cir.1989); Dollar, Rich v. It is the under section 1291. final order Cir.1988). 1558, 1560-61 general See gives us qualified immunity defense Brantley, 895 ly Green a denial of such a jurisdiction to review J., Cir.1990) (Kravitch, specially con effectively protect in order to Mitchell, According to curring). “[a]ll [an right” litiga- to avoid “claim of defendant’s reviewing the denial of appellate court must, under claim that Cohen’s tion—a immunity] need deter claim defendant’s doctrine, “separable collateral order legal of law: whether mine is a to, from, rights asserted in and collateral by the defendant allegedly violated norms Cohen, 337 U.S. at action.” at the time of clearly established deciding at 1225-26. S.Ct. actions_” Mitchell, 472 U.S. challenged however, issue, the district court 2816; 9,n. 528, 105 see id. at 528 conduct the defendant’s considers whether (“the appealable issue at 2816n. 9 gleaned from the presented as —whether legal one: whether the purely ais facts as a whole—did or complaint or the record [presented] support ... a claim of violation clearly law that was estab- did not violate clearly established (emphasis law” add district court’s at the time. The lished ed)). im- thus contains the denial of the motion support In of its characterization of this plaintiff has that plicit determination Riley precedent, circuit’s the court cites the law ordi- presented a claim for which Wainwright, otherwise, relief; defendant narily provides 1986). Riley, panel In a of this court stat necessarily immune because his would be ed that it could not review clearly es- have violated conduct could not summary of the defendants’ court’s denial review, Similarly, appellate law. tablished quali judgment motion based on claim law,” must although limited to “issue[s] immunity that denial “did not fied because of the under- entail consideration factual panel turn on an issue of law.” Id. claim for relief plaintiff’s pinnings of denied reported that the district court had the defendant’s entitle- in order to assess development” the motion because “factual might dis- immunity. This court ment to required the district court could was that these the district court agree with finality Riley with whether “determine[] a claim for underpinnings make out factual subjected dep to a constitutional had been normally jur- lack issue that we relief—an and, so, if whether some or all of rivation interlocutory ap- an to decide on isdiction entitled to the benefit the defendants were as it is on jurisdiction, our based peal—but qualified immunity.” Riley Id. The defense, un- immunity is nonetheless the district court's plaintiff panel if has no claim then held that compromised: (11th Cir.1986), Thompson, granting summary judgment 786 F.2d 1093 sions based on de- appellate involve immunity. review of court deci- fendants’ claims of district ruling quali- fect, any final order. an not decision deferral issue, appeal- it was not an immunity fied Id. meaning order within able final development” “factual reference This jurisdiction Mitchell, this court lacked in our circuit be- disagreement led to has it. to review Urrea, 847 See, Goddard e.g., fore. Cir.1988); at 770 id. 765, 769 sum, qualified immunity pre-trial In distinguish- {Riley dissenting) J., (Johnson, “the the court to assume analysis directs development” God- “factual able plaintiff’s version of validity of the should have appellate court adequate; dard whether those then facts and examine[] and de- of facts version plaintiffs assumed a claim of violation ‘support facts ” issue); supra also note see cided Goddard, law.’ established con- may be language Riley’s Although J., dissenting). The exist- (Johnson, correctly holding, its fusing, I believe is irrel- disputes the case ence of factual suggest that understood, I is sound. also presents a set evant. Where that envisioned Riley was situation district that enable the court of facts its Supreme Court by dis- allegations, the identify plaintiff’s that the deni- stating holding Mitchell present- that the facts decision trict court’s appeal- immunity defense al undisputed, sup- ed, disputed or whether on an issue it turns the extent “to able vio- conduct port a claim that defendant’s note 2. supra law.” See is a decision law lated court therefore of law. This on a pleadings plaintiffs Riley, As I read that decision. to review jurisdiction permit developed to sufficiently reasons, identify, and I cannot foregoing court For the district of facts. true, limiting set particular the court’s statement agree as with assume until the judgment a district court’s denying to review our had been allegations complaint’s for a motion denial of court’s deci- district developed, the immunity. further would have the court implied sion 12(e) Fed.R.Civ.P. granted statement, the defen- had definite more one. Sim- initially moved

dant-official quali- his defendant asserted ilarly, had the moving under immunity defense fied fail- 12(b)(6) for dismissal Fed.R.Civ.P. claim, note supra see ure to state MONTGOMERY, M. Robert permit- have no would doubt district Plaintiff-Appellee, complaint his to amend ted the factual contentions his spell out order ques- reached have would only & CASUALTY SURETY AETNA Because the immunity. tion COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. motion, but moved neither made defendant No. 89-3052. instead district immunity, the ground Appeals, United States Court on decision deferred final simply Eleventh Circuit. plaintiff’s until immunity question “developed” April sufficiently pleadings contentions identify the factual court to merits of to assess the facts light immunity defense Since presented. “motion was, in ef- immunity”

Case Details

Case Name: William C. Bennett, AKA John A. Richardson v. Garrison A. Parker, Warden, Robert M. Jackson, Officer, Daniel W. Cooper, Officer

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Date Published: Apr 25, 1990

Citation: 898 F.2d 1530

Docket Number: 88-8939

Court Abbreviation: 11th Cir.