Chaney-Snell v. Young

E.D. Michigan

Chaney-Snell v. Young

DecidedApril 10, 2023

Docket2:20-cv-13064

StatusUnknown

This text of Chaney-Snell v. Young (Chaney-Snell v. Young) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chaney-Snell v. Young, (E.D. Mich. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

KAMEL CHANEY-SNELL, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 20-13064 ANDREW YOUNG, Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ANDREW TEICHOW, and CITY OF PORT HURON,

Defendants. _____________________________/

ORDER STAYING AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE

In this civil rights lawsuit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff Kamel Chaney-Snell brought a Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant Officers Andrew Young and Andrew Teichow and a Monell claim against Defendants St. Clair County and City of Port Huron. In an opinion and order on the parties’ motions for summary judgment, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Monell claim against both municipalities but found that Defendant Officers are not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity and thus Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim against Officers Young and Teichow survives summary judgment. (ECF. 39.) Both Defendant Officers filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF Nos. 45, 47.) While the denial of summary judgment is generally not a final, appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, “‘a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law,’ falls within a limited category of immediately appealable collateral orders.” Estate of Barnwell v. Grigsby, 681 F. App’x 435, 439 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985)). Courts often stay the district court proceedings pending interlocutory appeals of the qualified immunity issue. See, e.g., Essex v. County of Livingston, 518 F. App’x 351, 354 (6th Cir. 2013); Richko v. Wayne County Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 12-CV-11232, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57922, at *2 (E.D. Mich. May 4, 2015). Thus, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is STAYED and CLOSED for administrative purposes pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal.

The case will be reopened once the Sixth Circuit issues its mandate. SO ORDERED. s/Nancy G. Edmunds Nancy G. Edmunds United States District Judge

Dated: April 10, 2023

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on April 10, 2023, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa Bartlett Case Manager

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

KAMEL CHANEY-SNELL, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 20-13064 ANDREW YOUNG, Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ANDREW TEICHOW, and CITY OF PORT HURON,

Defendants. _____________________________/

ORDER STAYING AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE

In this civil rights lawsuit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff Kamel Chaney-Snell brought a Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant Officers Andrew Young and Andrew Teichow and a Monell claim against Defendants St. Clair County and City of Port Huron. In an opinion and order on the parties’ motions for summary judgment, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Monell claim against both municipalities but found that Defendant Officers are not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity and thus Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim against Officers Young and Teichow survives summary judgment. (ECF. 39.) Both Defendant Officers filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF Nos. 45, 47.) While the denial of summary judgment is generally not a final, appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, “‘a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law,’ falls within a limited category of immediately appealable collateral orders.” Estate of Barnwell v. Grigsby, 681 F. App’x 435, 439 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985)). Courts often stay the district court proceedings pending interlocutory appeals of the qualified immunity issue. See, e.g., Essex v. County of Livingston, 518 F. App’x 351, 354 (6th Cir. 2013); Richko v. Wayne County Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 12-CV-11232, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57922, at *2 (E.D. Mich. May 4, 2015). Thus, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is STAYED and CLOSED for administrative purposes pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal.

The case will be reopened once the Sixth Circuit issues its mandate. SO ORDERED. s/Nancy G. Edmunds Nancy G. Edmunds United States District Judge

Dated: April 10, 2023

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on April 10, 2023, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa Bartlett Case Manager

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Chaney-Snell v. Young, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chaney-snell-v-young-mied-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack