US District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami) - United States ...

Case 1:09-cv-22905-JAL Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/17/2011 Page 5 of 6
5
Stringer v. Jackson, et al.
Case No. 09-22905-Civ-Lenard/White
held that qualified immunity can be raised through a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Ansley v. Heinrich,
925 F.2d 1339, 1347 (11th Cir. 1991) (“We reiterate that qualified immunity is a question of law
for the court to decide preferably on pretrial motions for . . . failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) . . . ”). This is consistent
with the principle that “[q]uestions of qualified immunity must be resolved at the earliest
possible stage in litigation.” Gonzalez v. Reno, 325 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2003). Further,
the Eleventh Circuit has cautioned district courts that they cannot defer ruling on qualified
immunity because it constitutes protection not merely from liability, but also from suit in
general. Collins v. Sch. Bd. of Dade County, 981 F.2d 1203, 1204-05 (11th Cir. 1993)
(determining that deferral of ruling on qualified immunity constitutes error and operates as a
denial of immunity from suit). After all, the goal of qualified immunity is to eliminate a claim as
soon as it becomes apparent that the claim is barred. See Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232
(1991) (“One of the purposes of immunity, absolute or qualified, is to spare a defendant not only
unwarranted liability, but unwarranted demands customarily imposed upon those defending a
long drawn out lawsuit.”). Therefore, Magistrate Judge White erred in his refusal to rule upon
the qualified immunity issue at this stage of the proceedings.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully submit that Magistrate Judge White
erred in recommending that Defendants‟ Motion to Dismiss [D.E. #56] be denied in part and
Plaintiff‟s retaliation claim be allowed to proceed. Defendants respectfully request that qualified
immunity be recognized, and all of Plaintiff‟s claims against Jackson and Harris be dismissed
with prejudice.