holding that a stay of discovery is mandatory unless the court is unable to rule on the immunity defense without further clarification of the facts
Summary of this case from Foreman v. Tex. a M Univ. Syst. Health Sc. CTRNo. 94-1707.
June 12, 1995.
C.A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 41 F. 3d 667.
holding that a stay of discovery is mandatory unless the court is unable to rule on the immunity defense without further clarification of the facts
Summary of this case from Foreman v. Tex. a M Univ. Syst. Health Sc. CTRrequiring a § 1983 litigant "to allege the particular facts forming the basis of his claim, including those preventing [the plaintiff] from successfully maintaining a qualified immunity defense"
Summary of this case from Raspberry v. JohnsonFull title:WILLIAMSON et al. v. SACRED HEART HOSPITAL OF PENSACOLA et al
Court:U.S.
Date published: Jun 12, 1995
Further, the amended claim shall allege detailed facts as to why Deputy Cable's defense of qualified immunity…
Parsons v. City of Rio VistaMoreover, Parsons' complaint does not plead with specificity facts showing why Alford is not entitled to…