Opinion
No. 3-04-CV-1084-G.
April 29, 2005
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Defendants have filed a joint motion to stay this litigation or, in the alternative, to stay discovery pending the conclusion of any criminal investigations or related proceedings. For the reasons stated herein, the motion is denied.
I.
This is a civil rights action brought by the family of Gilbert Hernandez against Navarro County, Texas, the City of Corsicana, and two law enforcement officers. In their complaint, plaintiffs allege that Navarro County Deputy Sheriff Brad Gannon and Corsicana Police Officer Charles Fincher used excessive force against Hernandez while arresting him on May 7, 2003. Although defendants claim that the officers used no more force than necessary to stop and arrest a fleeing suspect, at least one witness observed Gannon and Fincher repeatedly kick Hernandez and strike him with their fists after he was apprehended. Hernandez later died of injuries inflicted by the officers. An autopsy conducted by the medical examiner listed the manner of death as a homicide.
The district judge initially stayed all discovery against Gannon and Fincher pending the resolution of their motions for summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. See Order, 10/27/04. Thereafter, the court denied summary judgment in favor of defendants and lifted the stay. Hernandez v. Fincher, 2005 WL 265214 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2005). All issues regarding the scope of discovery were referred to the magistrate judge for determination. See Order, 2/3/05.
The district judge dismissed plaintiffs' failure to train claims against Navarro County and the City of Corsicana. See Hernandez, 2005 WL 265214 at *5. All other claims, including plaintiffs' excessive force claim against Gannon and Fincher, survived summary judgment.
Gannon and Fincher, joined by the municipal defendants, now seek a stay of this litigation or, in the alternative, a stay of discovery pending the conclusion of any criminal investigations or related proceedings. According to defendants, federal and state law enforcement authorities are currently investigating the incident made the basis of this suit. Although neither Gannon nor Fincher have been indicted and no criminal charges have been filed to date, the individual defendants argue that a stay is necessary to protect their Fifth Amendment rights and to prevent "substantial and irreparable prejudice." (Def. Mot. at 2). Plaintiffs oppose a stay. The issues have been fully briefed by the parties in an Amended Joint Status Report filed on April 20, 2005, and the motion is ripe for determination.
II.
A federal district court has the inherent power to stay all or part of a civil action pending the resolution of a parallel criminal investigation. SEC v. First Financial Group of Texas, Inc., 659 F.2d 660, 667-68 (5th Cir. 1981), citing United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n. 27, 90 S.Ct. 763, 770 n. 27, 25 L.Ed.2d 1 (1970); see also United States v. District Council of New York City and Vicinity of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 782 F.Supp. 920,925 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (general rule is that civil and criminal proceedings can go forward simultaneously absent "special circumstances"). Where, as here, a party seeks a stay to protect his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the court must balance the interests of the party asserting the privilege against any prejudice resulting to the other parties. Frierson v. City of Terrell 2003 WL 21355969 at *2 (N.D. Tex. Jun. 6, 2003), citing Wehling v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 608 F.2d 1084, 1089 (5th Cir. 1979). Among the factors relevant to this determination are: (1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those presented in the civil case; (2) the status of the criminal case, including whether the defendants have been indicted; (3) the private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously weighed against any prejudice caused by delay; (4) the private interests of and burden on the defendants; (5) the interests of the court; and (6) the public interest. Id., quoting Librado v. M.S. Carriers, Inc., 2002 WL 31495988 at *1 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2002); see also Maloney v. Gordon, 328 F.Supp.2d 508, 511 (D. Del. 2004).
A.
Courts have recognized that a stay of a civil action is most appropriate where a party has been indicted for the same conduct. Frierson, 2003 WL 21355969 at *3; Cruz v. County of DuPage, 1997 WL 370194 at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 27, 1997); Twenty First Century Corp. v. LaBianca, 801 F.Supp. 1007, 1011 (E.D.N.Y. 1992). In such situations, it is more likely that a defendant may make incriminating statements that implicate his Fifth Amendment rights. Frierson, 2003 WL 21355969 at *3; see also Librado, 2002 WL 31495988 at *2. Any prejudice to the plaintiffs in the civil action also is reduced since the criminal case will likely be resolved quickly due to Speedy Trial Act considerations. Frierson, 2003 WL 21355969 at *3; Librado, 2002 WL 31495988 at *2.
Almost two years have past since Hernandez died while in police custody. Despite ongoing investigations by state and federal authorities, no indictments have been returned against Gannon or Fincher. Indeed, there is no indication that either defendant will ever be prosecuted for their actions or, should they be indicted, when the criminal proceedings will terminate. Under these circumstances, the status of the criminal case weighs heavily against granting a stay. See, e.g. SEC v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1376 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 101 S.Ct. 529 (1980) (denying motion to stay where civil defendant faced only threat of indictment); District Council of New York City, 782 F.Supp.at 925 (mere possibility of criminal proceedings did not justify stay where defendants had not been indicted); Citibank, N.A. v. Hakim, 1993 WL 481335 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 1993) (motion to stay could be denied on sole ground that indictment had not issued).
B.
Nor do any of the other factors, either alone or in combination, justify a stay of this litigation or discovery. Plaintiffs have a significant interest in proceeding expeditiously to avoid problems with witness availability and memory loss. Hakim, 1993 WL 481335 at *1. Absent an indictment, the private interests of Gannon and Fincher in protecting their Fifth Amendment rights are not entitled to significant weight. Dresser, 628 F.2d at 1376 (Fifth Amendment privilege not implicated where no indictments had been returned); District Council of New York City, 782 F.Supp.at 925 ("unpleasant choice" between asserting right against self-incrimination and facing liability does not constitute undue prejudice to a defendant); Librado, 2002 WL 31495988 at *1 (likelihood that a defendant may make incriminating statements is greatest after an indictment has issued); see also Hakim, 1993 WL 481335 at *1 (potential for prejudice to defendant is diminished where a private party, rather than the government, is the plaintiff in the civil action). With respect to the interests of the court, defendants argue that allowing the criminal case to proceed may help narrow the issues and promote settlement. However, such considerations do not outweigh plaintiffs' interest in the expeditious resolution of their claims. Additionally, the court notes that the issues in the civil action already have been limited by the ruling on defendants' motions for summary judgment and the parties have tried, but failed, to settle their dispute. Finally, a stay would be contrary to the public interest of promoting the just resolution of civil cases with minimal delay.
Because neither party disputes that the criminal investigation involves the same subject matter as the civil action, the court will not belabor the analysis of this factor.
Accordingly, defendants' joint motion to stay this litigation or, in the alternative, to stay discovery pending the conclusion of any criminal investigations or related proceedings is denied.
SO ORDERED.