Black v. Nelson et al
Filing
12
ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 6/25/2013 DENYING 5 MOTION to Stay Proceedings. Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 8/21/2013 at 10:30 AM (Central Time) before Judge Rudolph T. Randa. The Court will initiate the call. See Order and attachment for details of scheduling conference. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A) (cc: all counsel)(cb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JAMES BLACK, by his guardian
SHERWONDER GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
Case No. 13-C-312
RYAN R. NELSON, STEVEN J. ARTS, and
“John Doe,”
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
The plaintiff, James Black, was beaten and sexually assaulted by his prison
cellmate, Richard Thompson. Black suffered severe and permanent neurologic injuries
that render him unable to care for himself. Thompson is currently serving a life
sentence for an earlier homicide but is being prosecuted by the state for assaulting
Black. That prosecution remains pending, and the defendants, the correctional officers
responsible for placing Black and Thompson in the same prison cell, move to stay this
lawsuit either until the Thompson prosecution is resolved or until December 31, 2013,
whichever is earlier, at which point the defendants would likely renew their motion if
the Thompson prosecution has not been resolved.
District courts have discretion to stay civil proceedings pending the outcome of
criminal proceedings. United States v. 6250 Ledge Rd., 943 F.2d 721, 729 n.9 (7th
Cir. 1991). The concept which underlies this discretion is that the district court can
spare a defendant of making the choice between “risking a loss in their civil cases by
invoking their Fifth Amendment rights, or risking conviction in their criminal cases by
waiving their Fifth Amendment rights and testifying in the civil proceedings.” Jones
v. City of Indianapolis, 216 F.R.D. 440, 451 (S.D. Ind. 2003). Hence, the entire
premise of the defendants’ motion is faulty because they are not being prosecuted.
That said, the district court obviously has the discretion to stay proceedings that are
pending before it, even if the defendants’ Fifth Amendment rights are not implicated.
“The power of a federal trial court to stay its proceedings, even for an indefinite period
of time, is beyond question. This power springs from the inherent authority of every
court to control the disposition of its cases.” Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United
States, 124 F.3d 1413, 1416 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S.
248, 254-55 (1936)).
In deciding whether to grant a stay, the court “must first identify a pressing
need for the stay. The court must then balance interests favoring a stay against
interests frustrated by the action. Overarching this balancing is the court’s paramount
obligation to exercise jurisdiction timely in cases properly before it.” Id. Defendants
argue that that the criminal proceeding should proceed unfettered and without
interruption, but again, it is unclear why the status of the criminal proceedings is of
interest to them. In any event, a stay will do basically nothing to “simplify the issues
in question and streamline the trial” or “reduce the burden of litigation on the parties
and on the court.” Grice Eng’g, Inc. v. JG Innovations, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 2d 915, 920
-2-
(W.D. Wis. 2010) (listing factors). Again, the issue in the criminal case is whether
Thompson is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of battering Mr. Black; the issue in this
case is whether the defendants should have kept Thompson away from Black. It is not
as if any sort of verdict in the criminal case would have a preclusive impact on the
issues in this case.
Even if there was some peripheral benefit to awaiting the
conclusion of the criminal case, the progress of that action has been waylaid by
Thompson’s erratic behavior, such that Thompson was ordered to undergo a
competency exam (according to a June 18 docket entry in State of Wisconsin v.
Thompson, 2012 CF 1095 (Brown County Cir. Ct.), Thompson was found competent
to stand trial). It is unfair to the plaintiff’s interests to force him to sit on the sidelines
while the criminal case against the man who beat him within an inch of his life slowly
lurches towards resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1.
Defendants’ motion to stay [ECF No. 5] is DENIED;
2.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a telephonic
scheduling conference is scheduled for August 21, 2013 at 10:30 a.m.
(Central Time). Please be available at that time. The Court will initiate
the call.
3.
The purpose of the conference call is to establish a scheduling order
which will limit the time: (a) to join other parties and to amend the
-3-
pleadings; (b) to file motions; (c) to complete discovery;
4.
The scheduling order may also: (a) modify the timing for disclosure
under Rules 26(a) and 26(e)(1) and of the extent of discovery to be
permitted; (b) provide for the disclosure or discovery of electronically
stored information; (c) include any agreements the parties reach for
asserting claims of privilege or protection as trial preparation material
after information is produced; (d) the date or dates for conferences
before trial, a final pretrial conference, and trial; and (e) any other
matters appropriate in the circumstances of the case;
5.
The time limitations set forth in the scheduling order may only be
modified for good cause and with the Court’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b)(4);
6.
The parties should be prepared to discuss the matters listed in Civil
Local Rule 16(a)(1). Please refer to Attachment A. Special attention
should also be given to Rule 26(f)(1), which requires the parties to
conduct a settlement/discovery conference at least twenty-one (21) days
prior to the initial scheduling conference described above. The Rule
26(f) conference may be conducted by telephone. Rules 26(f)(2) and
(3) mandate that the parties, within fourteen (14) days of their
conference: (a) file a written report outlining the proposed discovery
plan they have developed at their Rule 26(f) conference; and (b) make
-4-
the required initial disclosures under Rule 26(a) regarding witnesses and
documents. In addition to the matters specified in Rules 26(f)(2) and
(3), the Court requests that the proposed discovery plan submitted by
the parties include one or two sentences stating the nature of the case;
7.
The written report must include the telephone numbers where the parties
can be reached for this call.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 25th day of June, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge
-5-
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?