IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
April 24, 2008
DANIELLE L. BACHORZ, PLAINTIFF
CHRISTOPHER M. SILVIO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 24th day of April, 2008, upon consideration of the pretrial memorandum submitted by defendant (Doc. 79), and the upcoming jury selection and trial on Monday, May 5, 2008 (see Doc. 41), and it appearing that defendant Rosetti asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity*fn1 because he "acted appropriately and used minimal force to take Plaintiff into custody after Plaintiff attempted to interfere with the arrest of her brother, Shannon Mock[,] by climbing on his and S[e]rgeant Wetzel's back," (Doc. 79 at 12),*fn2 and that the question of "whether an officer made a reasonable mistake of law and is thus entitled to qualified immunity is a question of law that is properly answered by the court, not a jury," see Curley v. Klem, 499 F.3d 199, 211 (3d Cir. 2007), but that the jury should determine "disputed historical facts material to the qualified immunity question," see id. at 210; see also id. at 212 ("In spite of the . . . problem inherent in articulating specific questions to address factual issues, our most current precedent counsels that course."), and the court finding that there are disputed facts surrounding defendant's interaction with plaintiff (see Doc. 53 at 3-5, 10-11),*fn3 it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. On or before May 1, 2008, defendant shall file:
a. Proposed special verdict questions regarding the disputed facts that are material to the court's qualified immunity analysis.
b. A brief in support of his claim for qualified immunity, addressing under what factual circumstances defendant is entitled to qualified immunity in the instant action and citing to applicable and controlling case law for this proposition.
2. On or before May 1, 2008, plaintiff shall be permitted to file proposed special verdict questions regarding the disputed facts that are material to the court's qualified immunity analysis.