McClure v. Bethell

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

RICHARD JEROME MCCLURE PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 6:22-cv-6025

ROY BETHEL, Group 6 Narcotics Unit, and JENNIFER STARKEY, Probation and Parole Officer DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by the Honorable Mark. E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 6. No party has submitted objections. The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration. On February 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed his complaint against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff brought one claim against both Defendants for an illegal search and one claim against Defendant Bethell for excessive force. Id. On April 12, 2022, Judge Ford filed the instant Report and Recommendation. Judge Ford recommends that this matter be stayed because of ongoing state criminal proceedings against Plaintiff. No party has submitted objections. Therefore, the Court will review the instant Report and Recommendation for plain error. See Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1994). Judge Ford first notes that there have been two criminal cases opened in connection with Plaintiff’s two claims: an open criminal case1 against Plaintiff in Clark County Circuit Court on felony 0F drug and firearm charges, and a closed case2 in which Plaintiff plead guilty to charges of driving on a 1F suspended license, defective vehicle lights, resisting arrest, and possession of a controlled substance. Judge Ford then cites to the principle from Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), for when federal courts must abstain from hearing a case when there are ongoing state proceedings related to the matter

1 State v. Richard Jerome McClure, Jr., Case No. 10-CR-22-7. 2 State v. Richard Jerome McClure, Jr., Case No. ADC-21-744. before it. Judge Ford then concludes that a criminal proceeding is an important state interest justifying federal court abstention and that Plaintiff’s constitutional claims should be raised in that state proceedings. See Meador v. Paulson, 385 F. App’x 613 (8th Cir. 2010); see also Gillette v. N. Dakota Disc. Bd. Counsel, 610 F.3d 1045, 1046 (8th Cir. 2010). Judge Ford further notes that Plaintiff’s claims seek monetary damages rather than equitable relief, which supports staying the matter instead of dismissing it while the state court case proceeds. See Night Clubs, Inc. v. City of Ft. Smith, Ark., 163 F.3d 475, 482 (8th Cir. 1998); Quackenbush v.

Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 730 (1996). While the closed criminal case is related to Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant Bethel and would typically be permitted to proceed, Judge Ford notes that Defendant Bethel is also a Defendant for the other claim related to the illegal search. Judge Ford concludes that severing the claims and allowing one to proceed while the other is stayed and creating separate cases for Plaintiff to pursue would not be appropriate. Therefore, Judge Ford ultimately concludes that this entire matter be stayed pending the resolution of the ongoing state criminal proceeding against Plaintiff and that Plaintiff be given thirty (30) days after final resolution of the state matter to file a Motion to Reopen the instant case. Upon review and finding no plain error on the face of the record, the Court finds that Judge Ford’s recommendation is sound. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts Judge Ford’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) in toto. This case is hereby STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED pending the resolution of the ongoing state criminal proceedings against Plaintiff. Plaintiff will have thirty (30) days after the final resolution of the pending state criminal case to file a Motion to Reopen this case. Failure to file the Motion to Reopen by the deadline will result in the summary dismissal of this case. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 15th day of June, 2022.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge