Summary
staying § 1983 action alleging Fourth Amendment violations, false arrest, and malicious prosecution where criminal matter still pending
Summary of this case from Levesque v. DoeOpinion
01 Civ. 6570 (RCC) (JCF).
July 16, 2003.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The plaintiff, James Johnson, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants, a New York City Police Officer and the Police Department's Street Crime Unit, subjected him to an unconstitutional search, false arrest, and malicious prosecution. The defendants now move for a stay until the plaintiff's pending criminal matter, which arose out of the arrest and search, is resolved. The defendants contend that a stay is warranted in order to preserve the integrity of both the criminal and civil actions and in order to prevent the waste of judicial resources. The plaintiff has not filed any opposition to this motion. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted.
Background
On October 2, 1999, Mr. Johnson's vehicle was stopped and searched by Officer Anderson Walcott, a member of the New York City Police Department's Street Crime Unit. (Complaint dated May 30, 2001, at 3-4). Officer Walcott found a loaded firearm in the glove compartment of the car. Mr. Johnson stated to the officer that he was a bodyguard and carried a gun for his own protection. Subsequent to the search, Mr. Johnson was arrested and charged with criminal possession of a weapon (Complaint at 4), and on October 10, 1999, he was indicted. (Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion for a Stay dated April 15, 2003, at 2).
Mr. Johnson moved to suppress the firearm as well as his statement to the police. See People v. Johnson, 298 A.D.2d 281, 281, 748 N.Y.S.2d 594, 594 (1st Dep't 2002). On December 21, 2000, the Supreme Court, New York County, granted that motion. Id. at 281, 748 N.Y.S.2d at 594. Then, on July 19, 2001, Mr. Johnson filed the instant suit. On October 24, 2002, while this action was still pending, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision to suppress evidence and held that the plaintiff's statement and the weapon recovered from his vehicle would be admissible at trial. Id. at 281, 748 N.Y.S.2d at 594. The defendants then filed their motion for a stay.
Discussion
A district court has the discretionary authority to stay a civil action pending the resolution of a parallel criminal proceeding when the interests of justice so require. United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n. 27 (1970); Estes-El v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center, 916 F. Supp. 268, 269 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) ("It is well settled that the Court may (and indeed, should) stay a federal Section 1983 action until resolution of parallel state court criminal proceedings.");Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. The New York Post Co., 152 F.R.D. 36, 39 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). In exercising its discretion, a court should consider the following factors: (1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with the those presented in the civil case; (2) the status of the case, including whether the criminal defendant has been indicted; (3) the private interests of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to plaintiff 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. Trustees of Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund v. Transworld Mechanical, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 1134, 1139 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
"A stay of civil proceedings is most likely to be granted where the civil and criminal actions involve the same subject matter." Brock v. Tolkow, 109 F.R.D. 116, 119 (E.D.N.Y. 1985). The civil and criminal actions here arise out of the same events. Because of the overlap of issues, a conviction in the criminal action would bar Mr. Johnson's false arrest and malicious prosecution claims. See Mack v. Varelas, 835 F.2d 995, 999 (2d Cir. 1987) (stay warranted where one possible outcome of the criminal proceedings could negate an essential element of plaintiff's Section 1983 claim); Estes-El, 916 F. Supp at 269.
Furthermore, Mr. Johnson has been indicted in the criminal matter. The existence of an indictment generally favors the granting of a stay in a related civil proceeding. See In re Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. Securities Litigation, 133 F.R.D. 12, 13 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). This is because the civil action, if not stayed, might undermine the criminal defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, expand the rights of discovery beyond the limits of the state's criminal procedure law, expose the basis of the defense to the prosecution, or otherwise prejudice the criminal case. See Id. (citing S.E.C. v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1376 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).
The plaintiff, having failed to oppose this motion, has asserted no prejudice that he might suffer as a result of a stay. The defendants, on the other hand, could be prejudiced if the stay is not granted since the pendency of the criminal action precludes review of documents such as grand jury transcripts and records of the district attorney.
Finally, it is in the best interests of both the courts and the public to stay the action. Not only would a conviction in the criminal action negate some or all of the plaintiff's claims, but the criminal action may make future civil discovery more efficient since transcripts from the criminal case would be available. See Rosenthal v. Giuliani, 98 Civ. 8408, 2001 WL 121944, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2001). Staying the trial could potentially avoid a wasteful duplication of resources as this Court and the parties would have the benefit of the criminal court's rulings. See Guilini v. Blessing, 654 F.2d 189, 193 (2d Cir. 1981).
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the defendants' motion is granted, and this case is stayed pending resolution of the plaintiff's criminal case. The parties shall advise the Court as soon as the criminal proceedings are completed.
SO ORDERED.