Monson v. Detroit, City of et al

Filing 306

OPINION and ORDER Granting Defendants' MOTION to Stay Proceedings 303 . Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (EPar)

Case 2:18-cv-10638-LJM-DRG ECF No. 306, PageID.22534 Filed 02/27/23 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LAMARR MONSON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-10638
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson

v.
JOAN GHOUGOIAN, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STAY THE PROCEEDINGS [303]
After years of motion practice and extensive discovery, the Court ruled on the
parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment in this case. (ECF Nos. 292, 293, 297.)
Many of Monson’s claims survived and are ready for trial. But Defendants appealed
the Court’s decision to deny them qualified immunity. (ECF No. 294, 301.)
Now before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings pending
resolution of the appeal. (ECF No. 303.) Monson opposes the motion, arguing that the
appeal is “frivolous” and intended to unduly delay trial. (ECF No. 305.)
“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it
confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control
over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Williamson v. Recovery Ltd.
P’ship, 731 F.3d 608, 626 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc.
Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). And “[i]t is generally understood that a federal district
court and a federal court of appeals should not attempt to assert jurisdiction over a

Case 2:18-cv-10638-LJM-DRG ECF No. 306, PageID.22535 Filed 02/27/23 Page 2 of 3

case simultaneously.” Griggs, 459 U.S. at 58. However, the Sixth Circuit has
recognized that interlocutory appeals like this one “can be employed for the sole
purpose of delaying trial.” Yates v. City of Cleveland, 941 F.2d 444, 448 (6th Cir.
1991). Accordingly, it has suggested that a district court can “certify an appeal as
frivolous and begin the trial” despite a pending appeal. Id.; but see McNeal v. Kott,
590 F. App’x 566, 569 (6th Cir. 2014) (“A district court may (or may not) have
authority to issue an order labeling an interlocutory appeal as frivolous after the
government defendants file a notice of appeal.”).
Monson might be right that the appeal is frivolous and intended to delay trial.
But at this early stage, the Court declines to certify the appeal as frivolous. The
Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not
violate any clearly established law. See Monson v. Ghougoian, No. 22-2050 (6th Cir.),
(ECF No. 25, PageID.1 (Civil Appeal Statement of Parties and Issues)) (available at
ECF No. 305-2 in this case). This argument turns—at least facially—on an issue of
law appropriate for appeal. See Bunkley v. City of Detroit, 902 F.3d 552, 560–61 (6th
Cir. 2018) (“But the denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns
on an issue of law, is an appealable final decision . . . notwithstanding the absence of
a final judgment.” (cleaned up)).
If Monson is right that the appeal is frivolous, the Court of Appeals will remand
the case in due time, and Monson can seek sanctions. See McDonald v. Flake, 814
F.3d 804, 816 (6th Cir. 2016) (“If a court of appeals determines that an appeal is

2

Case 2:18-cv-10638-LJM-DRG ECF No. 306, PageID.22536 Filed 02/27/23 Page 3 of 3

frivolous, it may . . . award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.”
(citing Fed. R. App. P. 38)).
But if Monson is wrong, proceeding with the trial would waste judicial
resources. Indeed, the Court might try a case that should not be tried, or it might be
required to try the case twice. See Sexton v. Cernuto, No. 19-12574, 2021 WL 949541,
at *4 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 12, 2021) (concluding that trying a case while an interlocutory
appeal is pending might “result in duplication, waste, and additional expense”). In
addition, proceeding with the case “may result in a violation of the prerogatives of
government officials that cannot be undone.” See Gentry v. Wayne Cnty., No. 10-CV11714, 2011 WL 13160849, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 17, 2011) (noting that qualified
immunity is a protection not only from liability, but also from the trial process).
So the Court will GRANT Defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings. (ECF
No. 303.)
It is further ORDERED that the case is STAYED until the Sixth Circuit has
issued a decision on appeal.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 27, 2023
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3