Johnson v. Prince George's County, Maryland et al
Filing
36
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 7/28/11. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
STEVE JOHNSON
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 10-0582
:
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY,
MARYLAND, et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently pending and ready for resolution in this civil
rights action is the unopposed motion for bifurcation and stay
of discovery filed by Defendant Prince George’s County, Maryland
(“the County”).
(ECF No. 35).
The court now rules pursuant to
Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed necessary.
For the
reasons that follow, the County’s motion will be granted.
I.
Background
The relevant facts of this case were set forth in a prior
memorandum opinion (ECF No. 29), and will be repeated here only
briefly.
George’s
Early on the morning of September 5, 2009, Prince
County
Police
Officers
Ruben
Paz
and
Richard
Clark
responded to a call complaining of disorderly conduct at 7625
Ingrid Place in Landover.
Plaintiff Steve Johnson was sprayed
in the face with Oleoresin Capsicum (“O.C.”) spray.
then arrested and criminally charged.
dismissed nolle prosequi.
Johnson was
Those charges were later
On April 26, 2010, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
against Officer Paz and the County.
(ECF No. 22).
Officer
causes
Paz,
the
complaint
asserted
of
As to
action
for
assault, battery, negligence, and false arrest in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff further alleged that Officer Paz
and/or the County were liable under § 1983 for excessive force,
arrest
without
policy
and
probable
practice
of
cause,
and
because
failing
properly
to
of
the
hire,
County’s
train
and
supervise its police officers.
On April 23, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or,
in the alternative, for summary judgment.
court
dismissed
Plaintiff’s
claims
(ECF No. 20).
against
Defendant
George’s County for punitive damages on March 1, 2011.
Nos. 29, 30).
The
Prince
(ECF
On March 14, 2011, Defendants filed their answer
(ECF No. 31) and, on July 1, 2011 they filed the pending motion
for bifurcation and stay of discovery (ECF No. 35).
II.
Motion for Bifurcation and Stay of Discovery
A.
Under
Standard of Review
Fed.R.Civ.P.
42(b),
“[f]or
convenience
to
avoid
prejudice, or to expedite and economize,” the court may order
separate trials of any claims or issues.
The court has broad
discretion in deciding whether to bifurcate claims for trial,
and the exercise of that discretion will be set aside only if
2
clearly abused.
Dixon v. CSX Transp., Inc., 990 F.2d 1440, 1443
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 915 (1993).
B.
Analysis
The County argues that bifurcation is appropriate because
Plaintiff cannot prevail against the County unless and until he
prevails
against
Officer
Paz.
The
County
maintains
that
bifurcation will speed the discovery and trial processes and
conserve the resources of both parties.
if
bifurcation
is
not
permitted,
It further argues that
Defendant
Paz
could
be
improperly prejudiced by evidence of incidents involving other
officers that Plaintiff might introduce to show that the County
had a custom or policy of tolerating the use of excessive force.
Further, the County argues that it may be prejudiced if prior
actions or complaints against Officer Paz were introduced into
evidence.
Officer
Paz
Thus, according to the County, all claims against
should
be
tried
initially;
the
remaining
claims
against the County, if still viable, should be resolved at a
second trial; and discovery as to the County’s liability should
be stayed pending the outcome of the first trial.
Plaintiff
has
not
filed
any
opposition
to
the
motion.
Absent any compelling argument by Plaintiff, bifurcation of
the § 1983 claim against the County and a stay of discovery are
warranted.
3
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for bifurcation and
stay
of
discovery
will
be
granted.
A
separate
order
will
follow.
________/s/_________________
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?