## Facts

- Wynter Stokes, an adult with autism, left his residence, walked down the street, and entered the yard of a private residence in Ozark, Alabama.
- The homeowner called police to report a suspicious person on the property.
- Officer Michael Dodson responded to the call and attempted to apprehend Stokes; Stokes was injured during the encounter.
- Spring Garner, as parent and next friend of Stokes, sued Officer Dodson and the City of Ozark in federal court.
- Garner asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (including an excessive-force claim) and state-law tort claims, including assault and battery.
- Dodson and the City moved for summary judgment; Dodson raised qualified immunity, and the City argued it was not liable under § 1983 and was protected from certain state-law claims.
- In response, Garner moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) for additional discovery and submitted an affidavit stating she needed more discovery, including the ability to present expert witnesses, to oppose summary judgment.
- The district court granted the Rule 56(d) motion and denied summary judgment without prejudice to allow further discovery.
- Dodson and the City appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting Rule 56(d) relief based on Garner’s generalized request for additional discovery (including expert testimony) rather than identifying specific facts likely to be obtained that would defeat summary judgment.
2. Whether Officer Dodson was entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 excessive-force claim on the record presented, making further discovery unnecessary.
3. Whether the City of Ozark was entitled to judgment on the federal claims (including municipal-liability theories) and whether the remaining state-law claims could proceed against the City in light of Alabama municipal-liability limits.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting Rule 56(d) relief and denying summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held that Garner’s Rule 56(d) showing was insufficient because it did not specifically identify what discoverable facts were expected to be found, how those facts would create a genuine dispute of material fact, and how they would matter to the qualified-immunity and summary-judgment analysis.
- The court concluded that Officer Dodson was entitled to qualified immunity on the federal excessive-force claim because Garner did not show a violation of clearly established law under the circumstances.
- The court also concluded that the City was entitled to judgment on the federal claims because the record did not support municipal liability under § 1983, and the additional discovery described would not supply what was missing.
- The court directed the district court on remand to enter judgment for the defendants on the federal claims and to dispose of the remaining state-law claims consistent with Alabama law, including limits on municipal liability for intentional torts.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 56(d) requires the nonmovant to provide specific reasons it cannot present facts essential to oppose summary judgment; a party must identify the particular facts it expects discovery to reveal and explain how those facts will create a material dispute.
- A Rule 56(d) request is properly denied when it amounts to a generalized request for more discovery (including a general request for expert testimony) without tying the request to specific, outcome-changing facts.
- Qualified immunity protects government officials from suit when their conduct does not violate clearly established federal law; courts should resolve qualified-immunity questions at the summary-judgment stage when the material facts are not genuinely disputed.
- For § 1983 municipal liability, a plaintiff must show an official policy or custom (or a comparable basis for municipal fault) that caused the alleged constitutional violation; a claim cannot proceed based only on the officer’s conduct without the required municipal showing.
- Under Alabama law, municipalities generally are not liable for intentional torts committed by their employees (including assault and battery) under Ala. Code § 11-47-190, which limits municipal liability largely to employee “neglect, carelessness, or unskillfulness.”

## Conclusion

In *Garner v. City of Ozark*, the Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court order that allowed additional discovery under Rule 56(d) and postponed summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff’s discovery request lacked the required specificity and that, on the existing record, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity and the City was entitled to judgment on the federal claims, with the remaining state-law claims to be dismissed or otherwise resolved under Alabama municipal-liability rules.


Garner v. City of Ozark, 587 F. App'x 515 (2014)