Carmita Lewis, Personal Representative v. Charter Township of Flint et al

Filing 56

ORDER DENYING 52 Motion to Stay. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CARMITA LEWIS, as personal representative of the Estate of Dominque Lewis, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 15-11430 CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF FLINT, FLINT POLICE OFFICER MATTHEW NEEDHAM, HON. AVERN COHN Defendants. __________________________________/ ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR STAY (Doc. 52)1 This is a case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 involving a fatal police shooting. Plaintiff Carmita Lewis, as personal representative of the Estate of Dominique Lewis, is suing the Charter Township of Flint and Flint Police Officer Matthew Needham. Defendants took an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the Court’s qualified immunity decision. Proceedings were stayed by the Sixth Circuit pending appal. Lewis v. Charter Twp. of Flint, No. 15-1908 (Jan. 4, 2016). The Sixth Circuit affirmed the Court and held that based on the video alone, Needham is not entitled to qualified immunity. Lewis v. Charter Twp. of Flint, No. 151908 (6th Cir. Aug. 22, 2016). The Sixth Circuit denied rehearing en banc. Lewis v. Charter Twp. of Flint, No. 15-1908 (6th Cir. Oct. 12, 2016). On January 10, 2017, 1 Upon review of the parties’ papers, the Court deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2). Needam filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. See Doc. 52-3. Before the Court is defendants’ motion for stay of proceedings pending a decision on Needham’s petition for certiorari. The motion is DENIED. Discovery shall go forward. SO ORDERED. S/Avern Cohn AVERN COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: February 2, 2017 Detroit, Michigan 2

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?