[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 8, 2007
No. 06-14466 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00680-CV-CV-IPJ
KEVIN DANLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RUBY ALLEN, et al.,
Defendants,
JACKIE RIKARD,
RONNIE WILLIS,
RUBY ALLYN,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
06-14808
Non-Argument Calendar
_________________________
D.C. Docket No. 06-00680-CV-3-IPJ
KEVIN DANLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STEVE WOODS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
06-15580
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 06-00680-CV-IPJ
KEVIN DANLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEFF WOOD,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(March 8, 2007)
2
Before HULL, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case, the district court summarily denied defendant-
appellants’ motions to dismiss plaintiff-appellee Kevin Danley’s second amended
complaint. Danley contends that he was subjected to excessive force and then
denied medical treatment when, as a pretrial detainee, detention officers sprayed
him with pepper spray. The defendant-appellants contend that they are entitled to
qualified immunity from Danley’s claims. The district court entered one-sentence
orders denying each of the various motions to dismiss. The district court’s one-
sentence orders perfunctorily stated that the district court had considered the
motions and was “of the opinion defendants’ motions are due to be denied.” The
orders are devoid of any facts and any legal analysis.
Many times, and in many contexts, this Court has admonished district courts
that their orders should contain sufficient explanations of their rulings so as to
provide this Court with an opportunity to engage in meaningful appellate review.
See Clay v. Equifax, Inc., 762 F.2d 952, 957-58 (11th Cir. 1985) (collecting cases
in which the Supreme Court and this Court’s predecessor Court “urged the district
court to state the reason for its decision and the underlying predicate”); see also
Serra Chevrolet, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 446 F.3d 1137, 1151 (11th Cir.
3
2006) (in imposing sanctions, district court must clearly state its reasons so that
meaningful review may be had on appeal); In re Ford Motor Co., 345 F.3d 1315,
1317 (11th Cir. 2003) (granting petition for writ of mandamus where district court
“provided no substantive explanation” for its discovery ruling); Broadwater v.
United States, 292 F.3d 1302, 1303 (11th Cir. 2002) (in view of size of record and
number of allegations, summary denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was
inappropriate).
In this case, we conclude that the district court’s one-sentence summary
denials of defendant-appellants’ motions to dismiss wholly fail to provide this
Court with an opportunity to conduct meaningful appellate review. While this
Court certainly could review the record and applicable case law and render a
reasoned decision on the qualified immunity issue, this is the responsibility of the
district court in the first instance. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s
orders denying the defendant-appellants’ motions to dismiss and remand the case
to the district court to consider the case in full and to enter reasoned orders which
discuss the facts alleged in the second amended complaint and detail the legal
analysis used by the district court to reach its conclusions regarding the motions to
dismiss.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
4