United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
RESHAWN M. LUNSFORD, Plaintiff,
DAVIDSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al., Defendants.
ALISTAIR E. NEWBERN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
civil rights action, pro se and in forma pauperis
Plaintiff Reshawn M. Lunsford brings excessive force claims
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of an alleged assault
that took place while he was being booked into the Davidson
County Jail. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendants Officers Marvin Ramsey
and Kimetha Jones have filed a motion to dismiss under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that
qualified immunity protects them from Lunsford's claims.
(Doc. Nos. 10, 11.) The other defendants have answered
Lunsford's complaint. (Doc. Nos. 7-9.) All defendants
have filed a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of
Ramsey and Jones's motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 21.)
did not respond directly to the motion to stay and instead
filed a motion to compel discovery. (Doc. No. 27.) Lunsford
has also filed a motion for summary judgment that is not
accompanied by a memorandum of law or a statement of
undisputed material facts. (Doc. No. 20.) For the following
reasons, the defendants' motion to stay discovery will be
granted; Lunsford's motion to compel discovery will be
found moot; and Lunsford's motion for summary judgment
will be administratively terminated without prejudice to
refiling in compliance with the Court's Local Rules.
filed this action on January 15, 2019, against the Davidson
County Sheriff's Office and Davidson County Jail Officers
Ramsey, Jones, Corrice Thompson, Jorge Torres, and Scott
Satterlee. (Doc. No. 1.) According to the allegations of
Lunsford's complaint, which the Court assumes to be true
at this phase of the litigation, Lunsford was booked into the
Davidson County Jail on September 18, 2018. (Id.)
During booking, Lunsford's blood pressure registered as
“extremely high” and he demanded to be taken to
the hospital. (Id. at PageID# 7.) Thompson told
Lunsford not to yell and threatened to put him in
segregation. (Id.) Lunsford objected that he was
merely expressing concern about his health. (Id.)
Thompson pushed Lunsford against a wall and ordered him to
remove his shoes. (Id.) Torres then blindsided
Lunsford, slamming him headfirst into the ground and kicking
him in the eye. (Id.) While Lunsford was in
handcuffs and leg irons and pinned down by Torres, Satterlee
discharged pepper spray less than an inch from Lunsford's
face, spraying Lunsford's eyes, nose, and mouth.
(Id.) Lunsford was then placed in a holding cell.
(Id.) Lunsford alleges that Ramsey and Jones were
involved in the assault, but he does not know what role they
played. (Doc. No. 1.) Lunsford suffered a black eye, a deep
bruise to his left eye socket, and chemical burns in his nose
and mouth. (Id.) He seeks $500, 000.00 in damages.
Court granted Lunsford's application to proceed in
forma pauperis and screened his complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Doc. No. 5.) The Court dismissed
Lunsford's claim against the Davidson County
Sheriff's Office but found that he had stated colorable
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the other
defendants for excessive use of force. (Doc. Nos. 4, 5.) On
March 6, 2019, Satterlee, Thompson, and Torres answered the
complaint (Doc. Nos. 7-9).
Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery.
Ramsey and Jones have filed a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6), arguing that they are entitled to qualified
immunity because Lunsford's allegations that they were
involved in the incident, without more, is not enough to show
that they violated Lunsford's constitutional rights (Doc.
Nos. 10, 11). All defendants have filed a motion to stay
discovery pending the Court's resolution of that
qualified immunity issue claim. (Doc. Nos. 21, 22.) Lunsford
has not responded to the motion to stay.
Motion for Summary Judgment.
has filed a motion for summary judgment, which also
reiterates the allegations of his complaint. (Doc. No. 20.)
That motion does not contain any citation of legal authority
and is not accompanied by a statement of undisputed material
facts. The defendants responded in opposition to
Lunsford's motion, arguing that Lunsford failed to comply
with the Court's Local Rules concerning summary judgment
motions and that his motion is premature. (Doc. No. 24.)
Motion to Compel Discovery.
has also filed a motion to compel discovery asking the Court
to order the defendants to produce responses to unspecified
written questions and surveillance video footage of the
September 18, 2018 incident, which, Lunsford claims, are
“critical to prove [his] case.” (Doc. No. 27,
PageID# 117.) The defendants responded in opposition, arguing
that the motion should be denied as premature because their
time to respond to Lunsford's discovery requests had not
expired when it was filed. (Doc. No. 28.) The defendants further
argue that, for the reasons stated in their motion to stay
discovery, they should not have to respond to Lunsford's
discovery requests until after the Court rules on Ramsey and
Jones's motion to dismiss. (Id.)
The Defendants' ...