ORDER: It is ordered that Defendants William Pasewark, and Robert Ricketts are entitled to qualified immunity and all claims asserted against these Defendants in their¶

Patel v. Texas Tech University et al, No. 5:17-cv-00174-C (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 58 · 2018-08-06 · PDF

Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 58

Filed 08/06/18

Page 1 of 2

PageID 744

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION

RAJIN PA TEL,
Plaintiff,
V.

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-174-C

ORDER
Plaintiff was previously ordered to file a Rule 7(a) Reply to the Defendants asserting
qualified immunity and was put on notice that failure to plead with particularity facts focusing
specifically on the conduct of each individual would result in the dismissal of claims against
parties asserting the defense of qualified immunity. Reyes v. Sazan, 168 F.3d 158 (5th Cir.
1999). The Court finds that Plaintiff's Complaint and Rule 7(a) Reply fail to plead a
constitutional violation with sufficient particularity as to Defendants William Pasewark and
Robert Ricketts. These Defendants shall therefore be dismissed in accordance with the Court's
prior order. Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427 (5th Cir. 1995) (en bane).
The Court, having considered Plaintiff's Rule 7(a) Reply, finds that Plaintiff's pleadings
assert facts which, if true, would overcome the defense of qualified immunity as to Defendants
Duane Jones and Brittany Todd.

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 58

Filed 08/06/18

Page 2 of 2

PageID 745

IT IS , THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendants William Pasewark, and Robert
Ricketts are entitled to qualified immunity and all claims asserted against these Defendants in
their individual capacities are DISMISSED. 1
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED that any motion to dismiss or motion for summary
judgment relating to the issue of qualified immunity by Defendants Duane Jones and Brittany
Todd shall be filed within forty-five (45) days from the date of this order, with any responses
thereto to be filed in accordance with the Local Rules for the Northern District of Texas. The
Court will not consider a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment on the issue of
qualified immunity that is not fil; ton or before such deadline .2
SO ORDERED this

L

day of August, 201 .

1

Plaintiff's claims against these Defendants in their official capacities are really just
claims against Defendant Texas Tech University, and these individual Defendants should
therefore be terminated from the lawsuit at this point.
2

After the issue of qualified immunity is resolved, an additional summary judgment
motion on any or all remaining issues may be filed if need be. See LR 56.2(b).
2