Magee et al v. Lopinto et al

Filing 22

ORDER granting 20 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Sarah S Vance on 11/26/2024. (meb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MECHELLE MAGEE, ET AL.
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 23-6709

JOSEPH LOPINTO, ET AL.

SECTION “R” (5)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiffs Mechelle Magee, Ashton Reid, and Shilar
Reid’s unopposed motion to stay this action pending the resolution of
criminal proceedings against them in state court regarding the same subject
matter.1 For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion.

I.

BACKGROUND
This case arises out of an incident between plaintiffs and deputies of

the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office (“JPSO”) during an investigatory stop on
November 7, 2022, that resulted in plaintiffs’ subsequent arrests.2 Plaintiffs
seek damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and allege that the JPSO deputies used
excessive force during the stop and arrest, violating their civil rights.3

1
2
3

R. Doc. 20.
See R. Doc. 1 ¶ 3.
Id. ¶¶ 15-18.

Plaintiffs currently face charges in the 24th Judicial District Court of
Louisiana related to the incident. See 24th Judicial District Court, Section
“N”, Case Nos. 23-1017, 23-1018.
Plaintiffs moved to stay this civil action pending the outcome of their
criminal proceedings.4 Defendants do not oppose the motion. The Court
considers the motion below.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
When a party in a civil case is facing criminal charges, a district court

may, in its discretion, stay the civil action. United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S.
1, (1970); see also In re Ramu Corp., 903 F.2d 312, 318 (5th Cir. 1990) (“The
stay of a pending matter is ordinarily within the trial court’s wide discretion
to control the course of litigation, which includes authority to control the
scope and pace of recovery.”). The Fifth Circuit has held that, in ruling on
requests for stays of the civil side of parallel civil/criminal proceedings,
“[j]udicial discretion and procedural flexibility should be utilized to
harmonize the conflicting rules and to prevent the rules and policies
applicable to one suit from doing violence to those pertaining to the other.”
Campbell v. Eastland, 307 F.2d 478, 487 (5th Cir. 1962).

4

R. Doc. 20.
2

A district court must stay proceedings to “prevent a party from
suffering substantial and irreparable prejudice.” Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v.
First Fin. Grp. of Texas, Inc., 659 F.2d 660, 668 (5th Cir. 1981).

To

determine whether a stay is warranted, courts in the Fifth Circuit apply a sixfactor test considering: (1) the extent to which the issues overlap in the
criminal case and the civil case, (2) the status of the criminal case, including
whether the defendant has been indicted, (3) the interests of the plaintiff in
proceeding expeditiously, weighed against the prejudice to the plaintiff
caused by the delay, (4) the interests of and the burden on the defendant, (5)
the interests of the courts, and (6) the public interest. Alcala v. Tex. Webb
Cty., 625 F. Supp. 2d 391, 399 (S.D. Tex. 2009) (collecting district court
cases within the Fifth Circuit applying these factors).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs seek a stay to ensure that they will be able to meaningfully
participate in discovery, depositions, and motion practice without waiving
their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.5 The Court finds
that such a stay is warranted.

5

R. Doc. 20-1 at 2-3.
3

First, there is significant overlap between the criminal case and the
civil case. The similarity of issues in the underlying civil and criminal actions
is considered the most important threshold in determining whether to grant
a stay. Doe v. Morris, No. 11-1532, 2012 WL 359315, at *1 (E.D. La. Feb. 2,
2012) (citing Dominguez v. Hartford Financial Servs. Group, Inc., 530 F.
Supp. 2d 902, 905 (S.D. Tex. 2008)). Plaintiffs provide scant information in
their motion and complaint about the nature and subject matter of their
criminal cases. Nevertheless, plaintiffs allege that they were not engaging in
any criminal activity and that JPSO deputies placed each plaintiff under
arrest to minimize and cover up their unauthorized use of excessive force.6
The circumstances surrounding plaintiffs’ arrests therefore appear to be
centrally at issue in both the criminal and civil proceedings.
Moreover, plaintiffs assert that if their civil case proceeds, they will
invoke their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination at
depositions and in response to written discovery requests.7 “A party claiming
a Fifth Amendment privilege can constitute a ‘special circumstance’ in which
a stay is necessary ‘to prevent a party from suffering substantial and
irreparable prejudice.’”

6
7

Cruz Meija v. Bros. Petroleum, No. 12-2842,

R. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 15 & 16.
R. Doc. 20-1 at 2-3.
4

2019 WL 343026, at *2 (E.D. La. July 30, 2019) (citing First Fin. Grp. of
Texas, Inc., 659 F.2d at 668)). The first factor “weighs heavily in favor of a
stay” when a significant portion of questions posed to a party would likely
result in the assertion of Fifth Amendment rights. Id. (citing Dominguez,
530 F. Supp. 2d at 907)). The overlap between the criminal and civil action
here therefore supports the issuance of a stay.
Second, plaintiffs have been indicted and the criminal prosecution is
proceeding to trial.8 The return of a criminal indictment requires the Court
to “strongly consider staying the civil proceedings until the related criminal
proceedings are resolved.” Whitney Nat’l Bank v. Air Ambulance ex rel.
B & C Flight Mgmt., Inc., No. 4-2220, 2007 WL 1468417, at *3 (S.D. Tex.
May 18, 2007); see also Cazaubon v. MR Precious Metals, LLC, No. 14-2241,
2015 WL 4937888, at *3 (E.D. La. Aug. 17, 2015) (finding that a stay is more
likely to be necessary after an indictment is issued because “there is greater
risk of self-incrimination” (citation omitted)).

Additionally, plaintiffs

brought the motion to stay, and defendants offer no opposition. Thus,
defendants do not even suggest that a stay would burden or prejudice them.
Therefore, the second, third, and fourth factors militate in favor of a stay.

8

R. Doc. 20-1 at 6.
5

Lastly, the Court has interests in judicial economy and expediency.
Alcala, 625 F. Supp. 2d at 407. And the “public has an interest in the
resolution of disputes with minimal delay, but only to the extent that the
integrity of the defendant’s rights can be maintained.” Id. (citation omitted).
But granting a stay will serve both interests because “conducting the criminal
proceedings first advances judicial economy.” Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Offill,
No. 7-1643, 2008 WL 958072, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2008) (stating that
resolution of the criminal case may increase prospects for collateral estoppel
and res judicata, as well as civil settlement); see also Campbell, 307 F.2d at
487 (stating that “[a]dministrative policy gives priority to the public interest
in law enforcement” regarding the issue of “which case should be tried first”).
The fifth and sixth factors therefore also weigh in favor of a stay.

6

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that plaintiffs have met their

burden of demonstrating that a stay is warranted. Accordingly, the Court
GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to stay. The case is hereby administratively
closed pending the outcome of plaintiffs’ criminal trial in state court,
preserving the right of any party to re-open the matter once the criminal
proceeding has concluded.

26th day of November, 2024.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7