Hughey v. Tippah County, Mississippi et al
Filing
95
ORDER denying 91 Motion to Lift Stay; finding as moot 94 Motion for Leave to File Document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy Percy on 3/20/23. (bnd)
Case: 3:18-cv-00004-NBB-RP Doc #: 95 Filed: 03/20/23 1 of 6 PageID #: 436
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 PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION TO LIFT STAY
This matter is before the court on the Plaintiff’s Opposed Renewed Motion to Lift Stay.
ECF #91. The defendants oppose the motion. The court finds the motion is not well taken and
should be denied.
The plaintiff brought this action under section 1983 against Tippah County, Mississippi
and Tommy Mason seeking recovery for damages the plaintiff allegedly sustained in a beating at
the hands of Tommy Mason, a Tippah County Sheriff’s deputy, after knocking at the door of a
home where the plaintiff believed his ex-girlfriend resided. While this litigation was pending,
the plaintiff was indicted in the Tippah County Circuit Court on a felony charge of burglary of a
dwelling in connection with the incident that is the subject of this action. Thereafter, on January
29, 2019 and at the parties’ joint ore tenus request, the court stayed this case pending resolution
of the criminal proceedings. ECF #72.
On August 19, 2022 the plaintiff moved to lift the stay, stating that his criminal defense
attorney’s strategy was to allow continuing delay of the criminal case and that the plaintiff was
uncertain when the criminal case would be concluded. The defendants opposed the plaintiff’s
motion to lift the stay, arguing the pending criminal case would hinder the parties’ ability to
conduct discovery in this action and to prepare their respective cases for trial. For instance, the
1
Case: 3:18-cv-00004-NBB-RP Doc #: 95 Filed: 03/20/23 2 of 6 PageID #: 437
defendants argued, their ability to conduct meaningful discovery of the plaintiff would be
stymied by his Fifth Amendment right not to provide testimony that could possibly be used
against him in the criminal case. The court agreed with the defendants and denied the plaintiff’s
motion. ECF #88.
The plaintiff now renews his motion to lift the stay in this case. One of the plaintiff’s
attorneys in this case now represents the plaintiff in the criminal case as well. He contends that
the state has intentionally delayed the prosecution of the criminal case from its outset, including
most recently by obtaining an order requiring the plaintiff to undergo a mental competency
examination, which counsel contends will delay the criminal case indefinitely. Counsel states
that the ongoing criminal proceedings will not hinder discovery in this action because the
plaintiff will cooperate in discovery and has no intention of invoking his Fifth Amendment right
not to testify.1
In response to the plaintiff’s motion, the defendants state that the trial of the criminal case
has been continued a number of times due to the circuit court’s COVID-19 pandemic-related
backlog of cases and at the request of both the state and the plaintiff’s prior defense attorney -not at the unilateral request of the state as the plaintiff’s current counsel suggests. Further, the
defendants argue, the mental competency exam ordered in the criminal case is necessary to
determine whether the plaintiff is even competent to waive his Fifth Amendment right not to
testify as his counsel states he intends to do. The court agrees with the defendants.
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
Counsel also states that the plaintiff now has a court-appointed conservator, and yet no motion
to substitute the conservator as the proper plaintiff has been filed in this case. The court will
address this further below.
1
2
Case: 3:18-cv-00004-NBB-RP Doc #: 95 Filed: 03/20/23 3 of 6 PageID #: 438
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, No. 12-2946, 2015 WL 4397108, at *4 (E.D. La. 2015).
These factors continue to weigh in favor of leaving the stay of this case in place.
It appears there is significant overlap of the issues in this case and the criminal case, in
which the plaintiff has been indicted on a charge of burglary of a dwelling in connection with the
incident that is the subject of this action. Failure to stay a parallel civil action may undermine a
criminal defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and subject the
defendant to other prejudices. Alcala, 625 F. Supp.2d at 400. Although plaintiff’s counsel
asserts the plaintiff intends to waive his Fifth Amendment rights, the plaintiff’s competency to
do that is one of the very subjects of the mental competency exam ordered in the criminal case.
See Order to Examine Defendant’s Mental Condition, ECF #91-5. This weighs heavily in favor
of leaving the stay in this case in place.
An additional concern of the court – and one not yet addressed by the parties or the court
– is the extent, if any, to which the plaintiff’s claims in this case may implicate the validity of the
criminal proceedings against him. Under the Colorado River abstention doctrine, a federal court
may decline to adjudicate a controversy for reasons of wise judicial administration when there is
a state court proceeding with concurrent jurisdiction. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist.
v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817-18, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.483 (1976). Citing this doctrine,
3
Case: 3:18-cv-00004-NBB-RP Doc #: 95 Filed: 03/20/23 4 of 6 PageID #: 439
the Supreme Court in Heck v. Humphreys stated, “For example, if a state criminal defendant
brings a federal civil-rights lawsuit during the pendency of his criminal trial, appeal, or state
habeas action, abstention may be an appropriate response to the parallel state court proceedings.”
512 U.S. 477, 487 n.8, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). The Fifth Circuit has instructed
that following Heck, “district courts should stay § 1983 cases that may implicate the validity of
pending criminal proceedings until those underlying proceedings have run their course.” Gates
v. Strain, 885 F.3d 874, 883 (5th Cir. 2018).
In the present case, the court is uncertain of the extent to which the plaintiff’s claims may
implicate the validity of the pending criminal proceedings or the extent to which a conviction in
the criminal case may affect the viability of the plaintiff’s claims in this case. At the very least,
it would seem relevant to the plaintiff’s claim of excessive force in this case – and the defenses
thereto -- whether he was breaking and entering a dwelling when he was allegedly beaten by
Deputy Mason. Given the court’s uncertainty in these regards, “[t]he court may – indeed should
– stay proceedings in the section 1983 case until the pending criminal case has run its course, as
until that time it may be difficult to determine the relation, if any, between the two.” Mackey v.
Dickson, 47 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 1995).
As it did previously, the court acknowledges the plaintiff’s private interest in proceeding
expeditiously with this action. Likewise, the court again acknowledges the discovery-related
burden on the defendants of proceeding with this case while the criminal case remains pending.
As to the court’s interest, it is certainly true that a stay of indefinite duration may
interfere with the court’s obligation to manage its docket. Alcala, F.Supp.2d at 407. However,
once the plaintiff’s mental competency examination is complete, and if he is then deemed
competent to stand trial on the criminal charge, presumably the plaintiff’s current defense
4
Case: 3:18-cv-00004-NBB-RP Doc #: 95 Filed: 03/20/23 5 of 6 PageID #: 440
counsel, who disavows prior counsel’s strategy of delay, will demand the speedy trial to which
the plaintiff is entitled.
Finally, as to the public’s interest, “[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 the prosecution of alleged criminal wrongdoing is
the predominant interest, this factor continues to weigh in favor of the stay.
To the extent the court need address the plaintiff’s request – stated for the first time in his
reply brief – for an evidentiary hearing to examine the plaintiff’s medical records and to hear
other evidence, the court believes such a hearing is unnecessary and would be unhelpful to the
court’s examination of the relevant factors. After careful consideration of those factors, the court
concludes that the stay of this case should remain in place pending resolution of the related
criminal proceeding.
The court must also address the fact that the plaintiff now has a court-appointed
conservator who, under Mississippi law, may be appointed for an adult only upon a finding by
clear and convincing evidence that the adult “is unable to manage property or financial affairs.”
Miss. Code Ann. § 93-20-401(2)(a). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a conservator
may sue on behalf of an incompetent person. FED.R.CIV.P. 17(c)(1)(C). However, if an
incompetent person in an action is unrepresented by a conservator or other like fiduciary, the
court must appoint a guardian ad litem – or issue another appropriate order – to protect the
person. FED.R.CIV.P. 17(c)(2). As such, the court will order the plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel
to move for the substitution of the plaintiff’s conservator as the proper plaintiff in this action, or
to show cause why the court should not order such a substitution sua sponte or appoint a
guardian ad litem for the plaintiff.
5
Case: 3:18-cv-00004-NBB-RP Doc #: 95 Filed: 03/20/23 6 of 6 PageID #: 441
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Opposed Renewed Motion to Lift
Stay (ECF #91) is DENIED, and that the defendants’ Joint Motion for Leave to File Surreply
(ECF #94) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS ORDERED, FURTHER, that no later than 14 days after the entry of this order, the
plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel must either (a) move for the substitution of the plaintiff’s
conservator as the proper plaintiff in this action in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 25, or (b) SHOW CAUSE why the court should not order such a substitution sua
sponte or appoint a guardian ad litem for the plaintiff. If the plaintiff and his counsel fail to so
move or show cause as required by this order, the court will initiate proceedings to substitute the
plaintiff’s conservator as the proper plaintiff or to appoint a guardian ad litem for the plaintiff at
the plaintiff’s expense.
SO ORDERED, this, the 20th day of March, 2023.
/s/ Roy Percy________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
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?