THE ESTATE OF RACHELLE STEWART BY GENEECE PRITCHARD, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE v. CORRECTIONAL CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC et al

Filing 50

ORDER denying 40 Motion to Stay. **SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS**. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 7/3/2019. (MGG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
THE ESTATE OF RACHELLE STEWART BY
GENEECE PRITCHARD, PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE,
Plaintiff,
v.
KATRENA MITCHELL,
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:18-cv-00163-JPH-TAB

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY
Plaintiff brings this action alleging the wrongful death of Rachelle Stewart at the Marion
County Arrestee Processing Center. Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution and negligence under Indiana law. Defendants filed a motion to
stay the case [Filing No. 40] to allow Plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims to be first
adjudicated by the Indiana Medical Review Panel. Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ requested
stay. The Court sustains Plaintiff’s objection and denies Defendants’ motion.
Defendants contend that it makes no sense to have two trials, so this case should be
stayed until the Medical Review Panel process is completed. Alternatively, Defendants argue for
an extended delay (or re-opening) of deadlines in this case, again with the purpose of allowing
the medical review process to be completed so all aspects of this case can be tried at one time.
The Court agrees that two trials are best avoided, but a stay is not warranted, nor is a lengthy
delay that effectively would operate as a stay.
Plaintiff persuasively argues in opposition to this motion that the medical malpractice
claim is in its nascent stages, with no panel yet selected, such that a stay could delay the
November 25, 2019, trial for years. As Plaintiff notes, Indiana district courts have denied stays

such as the one at issue here. See, e.g., Minix v. Canarecci, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18347, at 5-6
(N.D. Ind. Aug. 16, 2005) (staying entire case would contravene Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, which
contemplates the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every proceeding). While there
is undoubtedly some overlap in Plaintiff’s state and federal claims, these claims also involve
different witnesses and exhibits, different standards for liability, and different damages. [Filing
No. 48, at ECP p.3.] Finally, Defendants filed their motion to stay more than a year after
Plaintiff filed this case and after the deadlines passed for completing liability discovery, making
expert witness designations, and filing final witness and exhibit lists. Simply put, at this stage
the equities balance in favor of proceeding to try the federal claims on November 25, 2019,
rather than imposing a stay of unknown but likely of significant duration. 1
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to stay [Filing No. 40] is denied.

Date: 7/3/2019

_______________________________
Tim A. Baker
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
All ECF-registered counsel of record via email

1

Plaintiff suggests that it might be best for Plaintiff to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice to allow the
federal claims to proceed. The Court agrees. Plaintiff should file a motion seeking such relief.

2