SCRANTON – Civil proceedings against two defendants named in litigation concerning the death of an inmate at the SCI-Dallas Correctional Facility have been stayed, per the order of a federal magistrate judge.
Amy Gearhart (individually and as administratrix of the Estate of Edgar A. Gearhart, deceased) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on August 25 versus the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, its Superintendent Kevin Ransom, Corrections Officers Osmel Martinez and Adam Bralczyk, Captain Virgil Meyer, Sergeant Gordon, John/Jane Does 1-10, Dorothy Ann Hobbs, L.P.N., Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. Medical Providers 1-5 (c/o Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc.) and Nafese Pierce.
“Before the Court is a motion by defendant Martinez to stay these civil proceedings pending disposition of criminal charges against him. The plaintiff asserts various federal civil rights and state-law tort claims against Martinez arising out of the decedent’s murder. In essence, the plaintiff alleges that Martinez, a correctional officer, was complicit in a vicious assault on the decedent, Gearhart, an inmate under Martinez’s supervision, committed by another inmate, defendant Pierce, who was also under Martinez’s supervision at the time,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito Jr. said.
“Martinez and Pierce are both currently facing criminal charges in state court. Pierce is charged with criminal homicide and Martinez is charged with involuntary manslaughter. Both are currently awaiting trial. Martinez has moved for a stay. Although Pierce has not yet entered an appearance in this case – indeed, the clerk has entered default against him for failure to plead – this Court has ‘the inherent power to sua sponte stay discovery pending the resolution of a parallel criminal proceeding.’ The decision to stay a case rests within the sound discretion of the District Court.”
Saporito continued that in order to decide whether or not to stay a civil case pending resolution of a related criminal proceeding, the Court must consider the following factors: (1) The extent to which the issues in the civil and criminal cases overlap; (2) The status of the criminal proceedings, including whether any defendants have been indicted; (3) The plaintiff’s interests in expeditious civil proceedings weighed against the prejudice to the plaintiff caused by the delay; (4) The burden on the defendants; (5) The interests of the court and (6) The public interest.
“In her opposition brief, the plaintiff has conceded the first factor – the overlap of issues between the civil and criminal cases. But she contends that the second factor is neutral and that the remaining four factors militate against a stay. We disagree. Both criminal proceedings remain in the pretrial phase, and any attempt to obtain oral or written discovery from these parties will more likely than not implicate their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination – particularly so in the case of inmate Pierce, who would most likely be unrepresented if deposed or served with written discovery,” Saporito stated.
“By contrast, we find no ‘particularly unique injury, such as the dissipation of assets or an attempt to gain an unfair advantage from the stay,’ to suggest that a stay will prejudice the plaintiff, particularly as we intend to permit the action to proceed with respect to the other defendants. Meanwhile, we find that the coextensive interests of the court and the public in the efficient resolution of litigation militate in favor of a stay, and the public’s interest in deterring abuses of civil rights through civil litigation will not be substantially impaired by a partial stay.”
Saporito then granted a partial stay to the named answering defendants, in the instant case.
“Under the circumstances of this case, having considered each of the several Barker factors, we find a partial stay of litigation in this case – limited to the two defendants facing related state-court criminal charges – is appropriate and fair to both sides. All proceedings, including discovery, involving defendants Martinez and Pierce shall be stayed pending disposition of the respective state-court criminal proceedings against them,” Saporito said.
“For the duration of this partial stay, these two defendants shall be relieved from any obligation to respond to any subpoena, notice of deposition, written discovery request or motion papers served by another party in this case, with the exception of any motion papers concerning the modification or lifting of this stay. The other pending motions concerning these defendants – a motion to dismiss filed by Martinez and a motion for default judgment filed against Pierce – will be administratively terminated with leave for the movants to re-file or request reinstatement of the motions when the stay is lifted. The plaintiff will be directed to provide written notice of the status of these defendants’ criminal proceedings every six months until the stay is lifted. An appropriate order follows.”
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 3:22-cv-01334
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com