Case 1:15-cv-00104-CG-N Document 10 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 6

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

MOTION TO POSTPONE PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION HEARING
COMES NOW the Defendant, DON DAVIS, MOBILE COUNTY JUDGE OF
PROBATE, individually and in his official capacity, by and through undersigned counsel,
and hereby respectfully moves this Court for an Order postponing the preliminary
injunction hearing currently set for Monday, March 2, 2015, until such time as the Court
has ruled upon Judge Davis potentially case-dispositive Motion to Dismiss in this action.
In support of this Motion, Judge Davis respectfully shows the Court as follows:
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 individually and in his official capacity.

Case 1:15-cv-00104-CG-N Document 10 Filed 02/27/15 Page 2 of 6

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.
On February 27, 2015, Judge Davis filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims in this matter.
ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY
3.

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

parties and the Court, Judge Davis requests that this Court issue an order postponing the
preliminary injunction hearing currently scheduled for Monday, March 2, 2015, at 1:00
p.m., until such time as the Court has ruled upon the Judge Davis Motion to Dismiss.
4.

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).
5.

Judge Davis Motion to Dismiss states that the Plaintiffs Complaint is due

to be denied based on various immunity defenses. Judge Davis immunity defenses

entitle him to dismissal of this action before the commencement of discovery. See
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985). Should the Court find that Judge Davis is
immune from one or more of the Plaintiffs claim, Judge Davis is then completely

Case 1:15-cv-00104-CG-N Document 10 Filed 02/27/15 Page 3 of 6

immune from suit as to those claims and thus immunity is due to be considered as a
threshold question in this matter.
6.

The United States Supreme Court has stated that one purpose of the

immunity defense is to avoid subject[ing] government officials either to the costs of trial
or to the burdens of broad-reaching discovery. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817818 (1982). It is in the best interest of the public that governmental officials, such as
Judge Davis, be protected by immunity defenses. The United States Supreme Court
recognized the importance of such defenses when it recognized that the expenses of
litigation and the diversion of official energy from pressing public issues, would
eventually deter able citizens from acceptance of public office.

The Court stated:

[T]here 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, 457 U.S. at 818.
7.

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

this action or this action in its entirety, a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion
would be premature. The time and resources that the parties would expend will be
rendered unnecessary if the Court finds that Plaintiffs Complaint should be dismissed
pursuant to the Motion to Dismiss, in whole or in part, or otherwise finds that Judge
Davis is entitled to absolute or qualified immunity in this matter. As a result, Judge Davis
respectfully requests that this Court exercise its discretion and postpone the preliminary
3

Case 1:15-cv-00104-CG-N Document 10 Filed 02/27/15 Page 4 of 6

injunction hearing in this matter until after 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 this Motion to
Postpone, and for further relief this Court deems appropriate.

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 10 Filed 02/27/15 Page 5 of 6

/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

Case 1:15-cv-00104-CG-N Document 10 Filed 02/27/15 Page 6 of 6