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

. ···!