Hughey v. Tippah County, Mississippi et al

Filing 88

ORDER denying 86 Motion to Lift Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy Percy on 9/12/22. (bnd)

Case: 3:18-cv-00004-NBB-RP Doc #: 88 Filed: 09/12/22 1 of 3 PageID #: 325

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
JAMES ALLEN HUGHEY

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18cv00004-NBB-RP

TIPPAH COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO LIFT STAY
Plaintiff, James Allen Hughey, seeks to lift the stay so that he may continue to prosecute
the case. Plaintiff asserts that “[t]here is simply no way to know when the criminal prosecution is
likely to conclude.” Docket 86, p. 1. Defendants assert, “[u]pon good faith information and
belief,” that the pending criminal proceeding will be set for November 2022 if the parties do not
negotiate a plea deal soon. Docket 87, p. 2.
District Courts in the Fifth Circuit consider the following factors to determine whether to
stay a case pending the resolution of a parallel criminal proceeding: (1) the extent to which the
issues in the criminal case overlap with those presented in the civil case; (2) the status of the
case, including whether the criminal defendant has been indicted; (3) the private interests of the
plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to the plaintiff caused by the
delay; (4) the private interests of and burden on the defendants; (5) the interests of the courts;
and (6) the public interest. Alcala v. Tex. Webb. Cnty., 625 F. Supp.2d 391, 398-99 (S.D. Tex.
2009). Courts may use the same factor-based balancing test to determine whether lifting a stay is
appropriate. See Billiot v. Beavers, 2015 WL 4397108, at *4 (E.D. La. 2015).
Plaintiff’s state court indictment is the subject matter of this litigation. Failure to stay a
parallel civil action may undermine a criminal defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against
1

Case: 3:18-cv-00004-NBB-RP Doc #: 88 Filed: 09/12/22 2 of 3 PageID #: 326

self-incrimination and subject the defendant to other prejudices. Alcala, 625 F. Supp.2d at 400.
Therefore, the first factor favors the stay.
Plaintiff has been indicted in state court, and the state court defense attorney and district
attorney both believe the criminal proceeding will be resolved at some point in 2022. ECF #86 at
1; ECF #87 at 2. The second factor weighs in favor of the stay.
Plaintiff expressed his interest in proceeding by filing his Motion to Lift Stay, so the third
factor weighs against the stay.
As to the private interests of and burden on the defendants, their ability to obtain
discovery from the plaintiff and prepare their defense will be impaired while the criminal charge
remains pending. This factor weighs in favor of upholding the stay.
A stay of indefinite duration may interfere with a court’s obligation to manage its docket.
Alcala, 625 F. Supp.2d at 407. The exact date the criminal proceeding will be resolved is
uncertain, but as discussed in weighing the second factor, it appears the proceeding will be
resolved before the end of 2022.
Finally, “[a]dministrative policy gives priority to the public interest in law enforcement.”
Billiot, 2015 WL 4397108 at *4 (quoting Campbell v. Eastland, 307 F.2d 478, 487 (5th Cir.
1962)). Because prosecution of alleged wrongdoing is the predominant interest, the sixth factor
weighs in favor of the stay.
The court also notes that Plaintiff states that his strategy in the criminal proceeding is to
allow continuing delay, and the defendants aver that the continuances in that proceeding have
been granted at the joint request of the DA and Plaintiff. Plaintiff himself preferring and
requesting that his criminal prosecution be delayed, his request that the stay in this case be lifted
due to that delay is essentially a request that he be permitted to “have his cake and eat it too.”

2

Case: 3:18-cv-00004-NBB-RP Doc #: 88 Filed: 09/12/22 3 of 3 PageID #: 327

Taken as a whole, the factors clearly weigh in favor of upholding the stay pending
resolution of the state court criminal proceeding in which Plaintiff is a defendant. Plaintiff’s
Motion to Lift Stay is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this, the 12th day of September, 2022.

/s/ Roy Percy
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3