Meadows v. Oklahoma City City of

W.D. Oklahoma

Meadows v. Oklahoma City City of

DecidedAugust 18, 2025

Docket5:24-cv-00981

StatusUnknown

This text of Meadows v. Oklahoma City City of (Meadows v. Oklahoma City City of) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meadows v. Oklahoma City City of, (W.D. Okla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

CORTEZ MEADOWS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-24-981-G ) CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER On September 23, 2024, Plaintiff Cortez Meadows, appearing pro se, initiated this federal civil rights action, bringing claims against nine defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl. (Doc. No. 1). Several of the defendants have appeared and moved for dismissal. See Doc. Nos. 9, 14, 24. Plaintiff’s allegations arise from his 1999 conviction in Oklahoma City Municipal Court and the defendants’ alleged misconduct in connection with that conviction. See Compl. at 2-4. In support of his claims, Plaintiff highlights the fact that on May 7, 2024, the District Court of Oklahoma County ordered that the 1999 conviction and sentence be made invalid, “Expunged,” and “Destroyed.” Meadows v. City of Okla. City, No. CV- 2024-867 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct. May 7, 2024) (order) (Doc. No. 1-4); see Compl. at 5. The Court takes judicial notice that, since the commencement of this action, both Plaintiff and the City of Oklahoma City—who is also a defendant herein—have sought relief in the Oklahoma County District Court case that could materially affect the terms or validity of the expungement order relied upon in the Complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff is seeking modification of the May 7, 2024 expungement order, while the City of Oklahoma City is requesting that the court vacate the expungement altogether.’ A federal district court’s “broad discretion to stay proceedings,” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997), is inherent in its power to “control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants,” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 229 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. First Nat’l Bank & Tr. Co. of Okla. City, 496 F. Supp. 291, 293 (W.D. Okla. 1978). In light of the ongoing state-court proceedings, and having weighed the “competing interests,” the Court finds that a stay of proceedings is warranted and appropriate. CONCLUSION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is STAYED and administratively closed pending further order of the Court. The parties shall inform the Court in writing when proceedings on Plaintiff's state-court expungement proceedings have concluded. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of August, 2025.

(Vauba B. Kodo United States District Judge

' The case docket for Meadows v. City of Oklahoma City is publicly available through https://oscn.net.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

CORTEZ MEADOWS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-24-981-G ) CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER On September 23, 2024, Plaintiff Cortez Meadows, appearing pro se, initiated this federal civil rights action, bringing claims against nine defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl. (Doc. No. 1). Several of the defendants have appeared and moved for dismissal. See Doc. Nos. 9, 14, 24. Plaintiff’s allegations arise from his 1999 conviction in Oklahoma City Municipal Court and the defendants’ alleged misconduct in connection with that conviction. See Compl. at 2-4. In support of his claims, Plaintiff highlights the fact that on May 7, 2024, the District Court of Oklahoma County ordered that the 1999 conviction and sentence be made invalid, “Expunged,” and “Destroyed.” Meadows v. City of Okla. City, No. CV- 2024-867 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct. May 7, 2024) (order) (Doc. No. 1-4); see Compl. at 5. The Court takes judicial notice that, since the commencement of this action, both Plaintiff and the City of Oklahoma City—who is also a defendant herein—have sought relief in the Oklahoma County District Court case that could materially affect the terms or validity of the expungement order relied upon in the Complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff is seeking modification of the May 7, 2024 expungement order, while the City of Oklahoma City is requesting that the court vacate the expungement altogether.’ A federal district court’s “broad discretion to stay proceedings,” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997), is inherent in its power to “control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants,” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 229 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. First Nat’l Bank & Tr. Co. of Okla. City, 496 F. Supp. 291, 293 (W.D. Okla. 1978). In light of the ongoing state-court proceedings, and having weighed the “competing interests,” the Court finds that a stay of proceedings is warranted and appropriate. CONCLUSION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is STAYED and administratively closed pending further order of the Court. The parties shall inform the Court in writing when proceedings on Plaintiff's state-court expungement proceedings have concluded. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of August, 2025.

(Vauba B. Kodo United States District Judge

' The case docket for Meadows v. City of Oklahoma City is publicly available through https://oscn.net.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Meadows v. Oklahoma City City of, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meadows-v-oklahoma-city-city-of-okwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack