Williams v. Canady et al

Filing 44

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 20 Motion to Dismiss; denying 28 Motion to Appoint Counsel and 33 Motion to Appoint Counsel; dismissing 34 Motion for Discovery; dismissing 35 Motion to Compel; dismissing 35 Motion to Compel and for Sanctions; dismissing 37 Motion to Compel; and dismissing 41 Motion to Compel - The court ABSTAINS and STAYS this action in light of the pending prosecution in state court. The court VACATES its July 12, 2011 initial order regarding planning and scheduling. The parties are DIRECTED to file a status report with this court within fourteen (14) days of resolution of the state prosecution, or by January 1, 2012, whichever date is earlier. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 10/27/2011. (Baker, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
NO.5:10-CV-558-FL

CHARLES A. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY CANADY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on defendants' motion to dismiss (DE # 20). Plaintiff
responded on July 20, 2011. Also before the court are plaintiffs motions to appoint counsel (DE
## 28, 33) and to compel discovery (DE ## 37, 41, 34, 35).

The issues raised are ripe for

adjudication.
STA TEMENT OF THE CASE
On December 8, 2010, plaintiff filed suit against Jeffrey Canady, Mr. Dunn, and Adren L.
Harris. The court construed plaintiffs claims as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Upon frivolity
review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court dismissed plaintiffs fifth amendment claim and
dismissed defendant Adren Harris from this action. The court allowed to proceed plaintiffs claims
against Jeffrey Canady and Mr. Dunn (collectively, "defendants") for unreasonable search and
seizure and excessive force.

On June 21, 2011, defendants filed motion to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. In the alternative, defendants request a stay pending
completion of a related state criminal proceeding.
Plaintiff moved to appoint counsel on December 8, 2010, and again on January 21, 2011.
The court denied these motions. Plaintiff subsequently moved to appoint counsel on July 6, 2011,
and again on August 9,2011. Plaintiff has also filed several motions to compel discovery (DE ##
37, 41, 34, 35).

On October 18, 2011, the court stayed discovery pending adjudication of

defendants' motion to dismiss.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff alleges the following facts:

A Johnston County Sheriffs Officer approached

plaintiffwhile he was in his vehicle parked in a yard in Harnett County, North Carolina. The officer
opened plaintiffs car door, presumably removed plaintiff or asked him to exit the vehicle, and
placed plaintiff in handcuffs. Plaintiffwas not advised as to why he was being detained and was not
advised ofhis Miranda rights. The officer then patted down plaintiff and found marijuana and crack
cocaine on his person. There were approximately ten Johnston County law enforcement officers
present, and an unknown number ofthose officers had their guns drawn and pointed at plaintiffwhile
he was handcuffed. Plaintiff was placed in a Johnston County police vehicle and was taken to jail
where he was held for 15 days.
Plaintiff further alleges that he was accused of possessing over twenty-eight (28) grams of
cocaine when he actually possessed less. He also claims that he was harassed and pressured to
provide information to law enforcement regarding his drug source and was offered a deal to
cooperate. Finally, plaintiff claims that he was threatened with unspecified harm if he failed to

2

cooperate by naming his drug source. Plaintiff has asked the court to award $1,000,000 in damages
and to dismiss all charges.
The Clerk of Court has confirmed that a state criminal prosecution of plaintiff, arising out
of the same incident at issue here, is scheduled for trial in the Superior Court of Hamett County on
December 5,20 II.

DISCUSSION
A.

Plaintiffs Motions for Appointment of Counsel
Plaintiff moves for appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). In order

dated April 22, 20 11, the court denied plaintiff s earlier motions to appoint counsel. The court finds
no good cause to depart from its earlier ruling. Accordingly, plaintiffs motions for appointment of
counsel are denied.
B.

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or to Stay
Defendants' move to dismiss or to stay this action pending resolution of the related state

criminal prosecution. As discussed more fully below, the court finds that a stay is appropriate.
When a § 1983 action is brought in federal court by a defendant in a pending state-court
criminal action, challenging on constitutional grounds the conduct of the state officials in
investigating or prosecuting the state action, Younger v. Harris, 40 I U.S. 37 (1971) and its progeny
require the federal court to abstain where granting the requested relief would require adjudication
offederal constitutional issues involved in the pending state action. Traverso v. Penn, 874 F.2d 209,
2] 2 (4th Cir. ] 989). A stay, rather than dismissal, is the proper action when the § 1983 plaintiff
seeks monetary damages. Suggs v. Brannon, 804 F.2d 274,280 (4th Cir. 1986). Younger abstention
is appropriate where there is "(1) an ongoing state judicial proceeding, instituted prior to any

3

substantial progress in the federal proceeding; that (2) implicates important, substantial, or vital state
interests; and (3) provides an adequate opportunity for the plaintiffto raise the federal constitutional
claim advanced in the federal lawsuit." Nivens v. Gilchrist, 319 F.3d 151, 153 (4th Cir. 2003)
(Nivens I).
Here, the Younger standards are met and abstention is appropriate. First, a state criminal
prosecution ofplaintiff, arising out ofthe same incident at issue here, is scheduled for trial in Harnett
County on December 5, 2011, as confirmed by the Clerk of Court. Furthermore, progress in this
federal proceeding has not been substantial. Second, plaintiffs pending criminal trial is the type of
proceeding which implicates important state interests. See Nivens I, 319 F.3d 151, 154 (noting that
a state has an important interest in enforcing its criminal laws). Finally, plaintiff will likely have the
opportunity in the state action to raise his constitutional claims. Nivens v. Gilchrist, 444 F.3d 237,
241 (4th Cir. 2006) (}iivens II) ("in a typical state criminal trial a defendant can raise his
constitutional claims as a defense to prosecution" and thus "has an adequate remedy at law.").
Accordingly, the court abstains pursuant to Younger and stays this action pending completion
of the state prosecution. See fu!w, 804 F.2d at 280. Plaintiffmay file motion within fourteen (14)
days of entry of this order to show cause why said stay should be lifted. The parties are directed to
file a status report within fourteen (14) days of resolution of the state prosecution, or by January 1,
2012, whichever date is earlier.
C.

Discovery
In light of the stay, plaintiff s motions to compel discovery (DE ## 37, 41, 34, 35) are

dismissed without prejudice. In addition, the court, having had cause to review the entirety of the
docket. sets aside the initial order regarding planning and scheduling (DE # 29). A new initial order
4

will be issued when the court lifts the stay and reinstates this action.
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,
1.

Plaintiffs motions to appoint counsel (DE ## 28, 33) are DENIED;

2.

Defendant's motion to dismiss (DE # 20) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
the court ABSTAINS and STAYS this action in light of the pending prosecution in
state court;

3.

In light of the stay, plaintiffs motions to compel (DE ## 37, 41, 34, 35) are
DISMISSED without prejudice.

4.

The court VACATES its July 12, 2011 initial order regarding planning and
scheduling; and

5.

The parties are DIRECTED to file a status report with this court within fourteen (14)
days of resolution of the state prosecution, or by January 1,2012, whichever date is
earlier.

,..

SO ORDERED, this thecQ1.: day of October, 2011.

~ Jbl'7'~~

~~1fW. FLANAG~

Unii~d States District Judge

5