Doe v. Cahokia School District # 187 et al

Filing 41

ORDER denying 37 Motion to Stay; denying 35 Motion to Stay. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 04/03/2014. (kbl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
vs.

No.

3:13-cv-904-DRH-PMF

CAHOKIA SCHOOL DISTRICT #187,
MARIO HUNT and TANYA MITCHELL,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on defendant Mario Hunt’s (“Hunt”) and
defendants Cahokia School District and Tanya Mitchell’s (“Mitchell”) motions to
stay (Docs. 35, 37). Plaintiff John Doe (“Doe”) opposes the motions (Docs. 36, 38).
On September 3, 2013, Doe filed a twelve-count complaint against
defendants arising from the alleged sexual abuse of Doe by Hunt while upon the
premise of Cahokia High School. On June 13, 2013, prior to the filing of the
current complaint, Hunt was criminally indicted in the Circuit Court of the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit on the charges of criminal sexual assault, aggravated
criminal sexual abuse, and transmitting HIV (Ex. 35-1).

The criminal case

involves a different student, not Doe.
In his motion to stay, Hunt asserts that the pending criminal charges clearly
Page 1 of 4

arise out of the same events that constitute Doe’s civil lawsuit and, therefore, his
Fifth Amendment privilege is potentially threatened by defending the civil action.
Defendants Cahokia School District #187 and Mitchell join in Hunt’s motion to stay
(Doc. 37) and argue that they will be greatly burdened by the negative inference that
can be drawn if Hunt asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege. Doe responds to both
motions, asserting that Hunt has been charged criminally with sexually assaulting a
different student and therefore a stay of the civil action is unwarranted as the two
actions do not involve the same subject matter.
“A stay contemplates ‘special circumstances’ and the need to avoid
‘substantial and irreparable prejudice.’

The very fact of a parallel criminal

proceeding . . . does not alone undercut a defendant or claimant’s privilege against
self-incrimination, even though the pendency of the criminal action forces him to
choose between preserving his privilege against self-incrimination and losing the
civil suit.”

U.S. v. Certain Real Property, Commonly Known as 6250 Ledge

Road, Egg Harbor, Wis., 943 F.2d 721, 729 (7th Cir. 1991) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted).
However, a district court may stay a civil action during the pendency of a
parallel criminal proceeding if the interests of justice so require. Chagolla v. City
of Chicago, 529 F.Supp.2d 941, 945 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (citing United States v.
Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n.27 (1970)). “Determination of whether to grant a stay due

Page 2 of 4

to parallel criminal litigation involves balancing the interests of the plaintiff, the
defendants, and the public.” Id. The Court considers the following factors: (1)
whether the civil and criminal matters involve the same subject; (2) whether the
governmental entity that has initiated the criminal case or investigation is also a
party in the civil case; (3) the posture of the criminal proceeding; (4) the effect of
granting or denying a stay on the public interest; (5) the interest of the civil-case
plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously, and the potential prejudice the plaintiff may
suffer from a delay; and (6) the burden that any particular aspect of the civil case
may impose on defendants if a stay is denied. Id.
In this case, there is not a sufficient connection between the civil and the
criminal case to warrant a stay of the civil proceeding. Hunt’s reliance on Doe v.
City of Chicago is misplaced. 360 F. Supp. 2d 880 (N.D. Ill. 2005). In that case,
a police officer faced a civil suit for sexual assault and criminal charges arising from
the same incident.

Id. at 881.

The criminal charges were lodged against the

officer, while the civil suit was filed against the officer as well as the City of Chicago
and two other officers.

Id.

The Northern District of Illinois concluded that

because the civil suit and the criminal charges arose from the same incident a stay
was warranted. Id. at 881-82. Here Hunt faces criminal charges for his alleged
sexual assault of another student. The civil suit and the criminal charges against
Hunt clearly do not arise from the same incident. Further, the Government is not

Page 3 of 4

a party to this lawsuit and the remaining four factors do not weigh in defendants’
favor in light of this conclusion. Therefore, defendants’ motions to stay (Docs. 35,
37) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Digitally signed
by David R.
Herndon
Date: 2014.04.03
14:10:33 -05'00'

Signed this 3rd day of April, 2014.

Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 4 of 4