McCollum, et al. v. Robeson County, et al.
Filing
308
ORDER denying 305 Motion to Stay. Signed by Chief Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 10/1/2019. (Stouch, L.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:15-CV-451-BO
RAYMOND TARLTON, as guardian ad litem for )
HENRY LEE MCCOLLUM, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
· KENNETH SEALEY, both individually and in his )
offical capacity as Sheriff of Robeson County,
)
eta!.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on a motion by defendants Robert E. Price and Kenneth
Sealey to stay all proceedings in light of their intention to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the
United States Supreme Court. [DE 305]. Plaintiffs oppose the motion to stay.
DISCUSSION
The Court presumes familiarity with the factual and procedural background of this case.
A district court has inherent authority to manage its docket, which includes the authority to stay
litigation pending the outcome of a decision by a court of appeals on an issue which would affect
or control the outcome in a case before it. See Ryan v. Gonzales, 568 U.S. 57, 73 (2013); Landis
v. N Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). When determining whether to stay proceedings, a district
court generally considers "(1) the interests of judicial economy; (2) hardship and equity to the
moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) potential prejudice to the non-moving party."
·Johnson v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-2274-JFA, 2012 WL 4538642, at *2 (D.S.C.
Oct. 1, 2012) (citation omitted). "The party seeking a stay must justify it by clear and convincing
The moving defendants have failed to demonstrate that a stay is warranted in this case. A
further stay of this action would not promote judicial economy nor would it inflict any hardship
on defendants Price and Sealey; as plaintiffs note, the Supreme Court grants few petitions for
certiorari each year. Rather, the prejudice to the non-moving parties is plain. This matter has been
pending for four years and was stayed awaiting a decision by the court of appeals. The matter was
· returned to this Court on the issuance of the mandate of the court of appeals for trial. The Court
is unpersuaded that a stay is necessary, and it denies the motion.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to stay all proceedings [DE 305] is DENIED. The
clerk is DIRECTED to refer this matter to the appropriate United States Magistrate Judge to
conduct a pretrial conference.
·so ORDERED, thi.s j_ day ofqctober, 2019.
'.
. '
. i
'
TERRENCE W. BOYLE
CHIEF UNITED STATES
l'
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?