Williams v. Webster Cnty.
| Decision Date | 19 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 4:21-CV-00093-JHM |
| Parties | TANISHA WILLIAMS, et. al PLAINTIFFS v. WEBSTER COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et. al DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
This matter is before the Court on a motion by Defendant Arthur Dale Collins to stay this civil matter pending resolution of the ongoing related criminal proceeding against him. [DN 40]. Fully briefed, this matter is ripe for decision.
i Background
Plaintiffs Tanisha Williams, Rachael Berry, Alyssa Lovell, and Jennifer McDaniel (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action in September of 2021 arising out of the alleged sexual abuse of Plaintiffs while they were incarcerated at the Webster County Detention Center by Defendant Arthur Dale Collins (“Defendant Collins”), a former control officer at the jail. Plaintiffs allege various federal and state claims against Defendants Webster County, Officer Arthur Dale Collins, Deputy Jennifer Reynolds, Jail Supervisory Sergeant Tabitha Willis, and Jailer Morgan McKinley (“Defendants”). [DN 1, DN 8, DN 35].
Prior to Plaintiffs filing this civil action, Defendant Collins was arrested and indicted in Webster County on charges of Official Misconduct in the First Degree, Video Voyeurism Assault in the Fourth Degree, and Sexual Abuse in the First Degree. Commonwealth v. Collins, Criminal Action No 21-CR-00025 (Indictment, Amended Indictment). As of April 5 2022, the Office of Special Prosecutions with the Kentucky Attorney General's Office has been assigned to the criminal case, and a pretrial conference has been scheduled for June 2, 2022. Id. Defendant Collins now moves to stay this civil action as to him pending resolution of the ongoing criminal proceeding against him and any proceeding “that may[] further arise secondary to said ongoing, related criminal proceeding.” [DN 40 at 1]. Plaintiffs oppose Defendant Collins's motion to stay.
II. Standard of Review
“The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes in its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigants, and the entry of such an order ordinarily rests with the sound discretion of the District Court.” F.T.C. v. E.M.A. Nationwide, Inc., 767 F.3d 611, 626-27 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Ohio Envtl. Council v. U.S. Dist. Court, S. Dist. of Ohio, E. Div., 565 F.2d 393, 396 (6th Cir. 1977)). District courts have “‘broad discretion in determining whether to stay a civil action while a criminal action is pending or impending.'” Id. at 627 (quoting Chao v. Fleming, 498 F.Supp.2d 1034, 1037 (W.D. Mich. 2007)). “The Sixth Circuit reviews this Court's decision of whether to stay a civil action for abuse of discretion.” Williams v. Jamison, No. 5:17-CV-00156-TBR, 2018 WL 3058874, at *2 (W.D. Ky. June 20, 2018) (citing F.T.C., 767 F.3d at 627). “Nevertheless, ‘[a] stay of civil proceedings due to a pending criminal investigation is an extraordinary remedy,' and ‘nothing in the Constitution requires a civil action to be stayed in the face of a pending or impending criminal indictment.'” Johnson, next friend of C.P.S. v. Hamilton Cty. Gov't, No. 1:19-CV-329, 2020 WL 6479558, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 26, 2020) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
District courts considering a stay of civil proceedings while a parallel criminal action is pending look at the following factors: (1) “the extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those presented in the civil case”; (2) “the status of the case, including whether the defendants have been indicted”; (3) “the private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to plaintiffs 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.” F.T.C., 767 F.3d at 627. As part of this multi-factor analysis, courts “should consider the extent to which the defendant's fifth amendment rights are implicated.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). The party seeking the stay bears the burden of showing a “pressing need for delay, and that neither the other party nor the public will suffer harm from entry of the order.” Id. at 627-28. See also Napper v. Hankison, No. 3:20-CV-764-BJB-RSE, 2021 WL 1084970, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 5, 2021).
III. Discussion
Upon a review of the facts in light of the above case law, the Court concludes that Defendant Collins has carried his burden to justify the stay.
The first two factors support Defendant Collins's stay request. It is undisputed that there is overlap of issues in the criminal and civil matters. The criminal and civil matters stem from the same events. And Collins has been indicted for his role in the events that form the basis of this suit. “Trial courts within the Sixth Circuit have treated this scenario-‘a party under indictment for a serious offense[, ] required to defend a civil or administrative action involving the same matter'-as ‘the strongest case for deferring civil proceedings until after completion of criminal proceedings.'” Napper v. Hankison, No. 3:20-CV-764-BJB-RSE, 2021 WL 1084970, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 5, 2021) (). In fact, “[a] stay is most appropriate where a party to the civil case has been indicted for the same conduct because (1) ‘the likelihood that a defendant may make incriminating statement is greatest after an indictment has issued; and (2) the prejudice to the plaintiffs in the civil case is reduced since the criminal case will likely be quickly resolved due to Speedy Trial Act consideration.'” Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Bongiorno, No. 1:20-CV-00469, 2022 WL 891811, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 28, 2022) (quoting F.T.C., 767 F.3d at 628); Smith v. FirstEnergy Corp., No. 2:20-CV-3755, 2021 WL 507881, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 11, 2021).
The third and fourth factors instructs courts to “balance the private interests of the parties against the potential prejudice faced by each.” Sikon v. Carroll Co., Ohio, No. 5:20-CV-0674, 2020 WL 8838043, at *3 (N.D. Ohio June 12, 2020); see also Porter v. Buckler, No. 0:14-127-DLB, 2015 WL 1926363, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 28, 2015). “The balance of hardships” has been identified by the Sixth Circuit “as the most important factor.” Napper, 2021 WL 1084970, at *3. Courts recognize that “[d]elay is particularly harmful to a plaintiff when the risk of spoliation of evidence, failed memories, or witness unavailability is high.” Johnson, 2020 WL 6479558 at *3. Similarly, courts acknowledge that the “[t]he simultaneous litigation of criminal charges and civil causes of action against the same person, for the same conduct, ‘may give rise to Fifth Amendment concerns sufficient to warrant a stay of the civil proceedings.'” Doe v. Matthew 25, Inc., 322 F.Supp.3d 843, 850 (M.D. Tenn. 2018) (quoting State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Lindsey, No. 2:14-CV-1902, 2015 WL 12991126, at *1 (S.D. Ohio June 29, 2015)).
Here, [t]he Court finds that Defendant Collins's risk that his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination might be undermined weighs in favor of a stay in the present case. See Napper, 2021 WL 1084970, at *3 While the Court recognizes this problem is not unique to Collins and is not by itself dispositive, United States v. Conn, No. 11-157, 2016 WL 4803970, at *7 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 9, 2016), “courts within this district have nevertheless recognized that this selfincrimination concern represents a significant ‘hardship' for the defendant that weighs in favor of a stay.” Napper, 2021 WL 1084970, at *3 (citing Clark v. Louisville Jefferson Cty. Metro Gov't., No. 3:17-CV-419, 2019 WL 4317057, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 11, 2019)).
The Court recognizes that Plaintiffs have an interest in the expeditious resolution of the civil action and that a stay of discovery impedes that interest. However, in the Court's view, Plaintiffs' concerns regarding the breadth and depth of the stay can be reduced by limiting “the stay to discovery and other litigation obligations that would materially implicate [Collins's]...
To continue reading
Request your trial