Case 1:15-cv-00104-CG-N Document 13 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CARI D. SEARCY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MOBILE COUNTY PROBATE
JUDGE DON DAVIS, individually
and in his official capacity,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 15-00104-C

DEFENDANT DON DAVIS, MOBILE COUNTY JUDGE OF PROBATES

MOTION TO STAY PRETRIAL DEADLINES AND
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
COMES NOW the Defendant, DON DAVIS, MOBILE COUNTY JUDGE OF
PROBATE, individually and in his official capacity as Judge of Probate for Mobile
County, Alabama, by and through his undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 6(b) and 26, hereby respectfully moves this Court for an Order staying the pretrial
deadlines set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this
Court until such time as the Court has ruled upon the Judge Davis potentially casedispositive Motion to Dismiss in this action. In support of this Motion, Judge Davis
respectfully shows the Court as follows:

Case 1:15-cv-00104-CG-N Document 13 Filed 02/27/15 Page 2 of 5

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1.

On February 24, 2015, the Plaintiff initiated this civil action by filing a

complaint and request for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Judge
Davis, both individually and in his official capacity.
2.

On February 25, 2015, this Honorable Court issued an order setting this

matter for hearing on the preliminary injunction for Monday, March 2, 2015, at 1:00 pm.
3.

On February 26, 2015, Judge Davis filed a Motion to Dismiss and brief in

support of said motion.

ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY
4.

In the interests of judicial economy and to avoid undue burden on the

parties and the Court, the Defendant requests that this Court issue an order temporarily
staying the parties pretrial deadlines pending the Courts ruling on the Motion to
Dismiss. The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court
to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for
itself, for counsel, and for its litigants. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254
(1936); see also United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1 (1970) (acknowledging that district
courts have discretionary authority to stay a case when the interests of justice so require);
Patterson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 901 F.2d 927, 929 (11th Cir. 1990) (holding that district
court did not abuse its discretion in staying discovery because the court had sufficient
information before it upon which to rule).
5.

As described more fully in the Motion to Dismiss and supporting brief, the

Plaintiffs Complaint is due to be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and

2

Case 1:15-cv-00104-CG-N Document 13 Filed 02/27/15 Page 3 of 5

12(b)(6), and also based on the fact that Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state any cause of
action under applicable state or federal law upon which relief can be granted, as well as
on other grounds. Moreover, the Plaintiffs Complaint is due to be denied because Judge
Davis is entitled to both absolute judicial immunity and qualified immunity.
6.

The Defendants immunity defenses entitle him to dismissal of this action

before the commencement of discovery. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985). It
is in the best interest of the public that officials such as Judge Davis be protected by
immunity defenses, and the United States Supreme Court recognized the importance of
such defenses when it stated that, without such protections, the social costs include the
expenses of litigation, the diversion of official energy from pressing public issues, and
the deterrence of able citizens from acceptance of public office . . . there is the danger
that fear of being sued will dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most
irresponsible [public officials], in the unflinching discharge of their duties. Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
7.

Because the Courts ruling on the Motion to Dismiss may dispose of part of

this action or this action in its entirety, compliance with the pretrial obligations set forth
in the Federal Rules and Local Rules prior to the Court's ruling on the Motion to Dismiss
would be premature. The time and resources that the parties would expend in conducting
an early planning conference and drafting initial disclosures, and a joint preliminary
planning report and discovery plan, will be rendered unnecessary if the Court finds that
Plaintiffs Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to the Motion to Dismiss, or
otherwise finds that Judge Davis is entitled to absolute or qualified immunity in this
3

Case 1:15-cv-00104-CG-N Document 13 Filed 02/27/15 Page 4 of 5

matter. As a result, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Court exercise its
discretion and temporarily stay the pretrial deadlines set forth in the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and Local Rules of this Court, pending the Courts ruling on the
Defendants Motion to Dismiss.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, and in the interests of judicial economy,
efficiency, and fairness, Defendant Don Davis, Mobile County Judge of Probate,
respectfully requests that this Court exercise its discretion and grant his Motion to Stay
Pretrial Deadlines.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Harry V. Satterwhite
HARRY V. SATTERWHITE (Satth4909)
J. MICHAEL DRUHAN, JR. (Druh2816)
Attorneys for the Honorable Don Davis,
Mobile County Judge of Probate

OF COUNSEL:
SATTERWHITE, DRUHAN, GAILLARD & TYLER, LLC
1325 Dauphin Street
Mobile, Alabama 36604
(251) 432-8120 (phone)
(251) 405-0147 (fax)
harry@satterwhitelaw.com

Case 1:15-cv-00104-CG-N Document 13 Filed 02/27/15 Page 5 of 5

/s/ Lee L. Hale________________

LEE L. HALE (HAL026)
Attorney for the Honorable Don Davis,
Mobile County Judge of Probate
501 Church Street
Mobile, Alabama 36602
(251) 433-3671 Ext. 2 (phone)
lee.hale@comcast.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this the 27th day of February 2015, I electronically filed
the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send
notification of such filing to the following:
Christine C. Hernandez
The Hernandez Firm, LLC
Post Office Box 66174
Mobile, Alabama 36660-1174
Christine@hernandezlaw.comcastbiz.net
David G. Kennedy
The Kennedy Law Firm
Post Office Box 556
Mobile, Alabama 36601
david@kennedylawyers.com

/s/ Harry V. Satterwhite

HARRY V. SATTERWHITE