Keller v. Monroe County, TN

• Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee
• Decided: August 4, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00421
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

TAUNYA KELLER, ) BRAD KELLER, ) L. KELLER, and ) A. AYERS, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No.: 3:24-cv-421-TAV-DCP ) MONROE COUNTY, TENNESSEE, ) MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF’S ) DEPARTMENT, ) SWEETWATER POLICE DEPARTMENT, ) MADISONVILLE POLICE ) DEPARTMENT, CITY OF ) MADISONVILLE, TENNESSEE ) CITY OF SWEETWATER, ) TENNESSEE ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay [Doc. 25], in which the parties request that the Court stay this matter pending the resolution of related federal criminal proceedings. The parties state that plaintiff Brad Keller is facing criminal prosecution in this Court for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The parties suggest that the outcome of the criminal action will likely affect at least some of the counts in the amended complaint in this civil matter. The Court maintains the discretion to stay a civil proceeding pending the outcome of a related criminal action. See F.T.C. v. E.M.A. Nationwide, Inc., 767 F.3d 611, 627 (6th Cir. 2014). Factors bearing on this determination include: 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.

Id. (quoting Chao v. Fleming, 498 F. Supp. 2d 1034, 1037 (W.D. Mich. 2007)). Additionally, the Court should consider “the extent to which [a] defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights are implicated.” See id. (quoting Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995)). Here, the parties have demonstrated that the factors warrant the Court staying this case pending resolution of the criminal action in this Court. First, the cases arise from the same alleged conduct [Doc. 25, p. 2]. Second, plaintiff has already been indicted in the criminal matter [Id. (citing Case No. 3:24-cr-5)]. Third, a stay is in plaintiff’s interest because it will allow him to avoid simultaneous litigation of the civil and criminal actions, as well as any Fifth Amendment privilege issues that may arise during the discovery process in this case [Id. at 3]. Fourth, given the joint nature of the motion, defendants apparently do not believe that they will suffer no substantial prejudice from a stay [See id.]. As to the fifth and sixth factors, a stay will promote judicial economy because resolution of the overlapping criminal case could moot or narrow issues raised in this case. In summary, the Court agrees with the parties’ arguments and will stay this civil action pending the resolution of the related criminal case. The parties’ Joint Motion to Stay [Doc. 25] is GRANTED. This case is STAYED pending resolution of the related

criminal case in this Court. The parties are ORDERED to notify the Court within fourteen (14) days of the resolution of the criminal case. The parties are further ORDERED to file a joint status report regarding the status of the criminal matter ninety (90) days from the date of this Order, and every ninety (90) days thereafter.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Thomas A. Varlan UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE