Moss v. Whitcomb

E.D. Arkansas

Moss v. Whitcomb

DecidedJanuary 15, 2021

Docket2:19-cv-00152

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Moss v. Whitcomb, (E.D. Ark. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DELTA DIVISION

DERRICK “DEWAYNE” MOSS PLAINTIFF

Vv. No. 2:19-cv-152-DPM

SCOTTIE WHITCOMB, Individually and in his Official Capacity; DERRICK TIMES, Individually and in his Official Capacity; and THE CITY OF CLARENDON DEFENDANTS

ORDER Status report, Doc. 20, appreciated. The Clarendon defendants’ motion, Doc. 17, is granted as modified. Whitcomb’s and Times’s alleged rough treatment of Moss is the subject of a pending criminal case. Moss’s civil claims against Whitcomb and Times relate so closely to the criminal charges that they can’t effectively defend against both. Koester v. American Republic Investments, Inc., 11 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir. 1993). Defendants’ propounding of written discovery is not a waiver of their Fifth Amendment rights. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938). For now, Whitcomb and Times don’t need to sit for depositions or respond to discovery requests. Moss can continue discovery about Clarendon’s practices and policies without asking about Whitcomb or Times or his encounter with them. But, the case is stayed and administratively terminated pending conclusion of the criminal proceedings. Because state and federal trial dates are currently

uncertain, the Court also suspends the Amended Final Scheduling Order, Doc. 16. Status report about Whitcomb’s and Times’s criminal case due by 11 July 2021, and every sixty days thereafter. So Ordered. TPrtust-C g. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 1S Janvor y Q2Ooal

_2-

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DELTA DIVISION

DERRICK “DEWAYNE” MOSS PLAINTIFF

Vv. No. 2:19-cv-152-DPM

SCOTTIE WHITCOMB, Individually and in his Official Capacity; DERRICK TIMES, Individually and in his Official Capacity; and THE CITY OF CLARENDON DEFENDANTS

ORDER Status report, Doc. 20, appreciated. The Clarendon defendants’ motion, Doc. 17, is granted as modified. Whitcomb’s and Times’s alleged rough treatment of Moss is the subject of a pending criminal case. Moss’s civil claims against Whitcomb and Times relate so closely to the criminal charges that they can’t effectively defend against both. Koester v. American Republic Investments, Inc., 11 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir. 1993). Defendants’ propounding of written discovery is not a waiver of their Fifth Amendment rights. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938). For now, Whitcomb and Times don’t need to sit for depositions or respond to discovery requests. Moss can continue discovery about Clarendon’s practices and policies without asking about Whitcomb or Times or his encounter with them. But, the case is stayed and administratively terminated pending conclusion of the criminal proceedings. Because state and federal trial dates are currently

uncertain, the Court also suspends the Amended Final Scheduling Order, Doc. 16. Status report about Whitcomb’s and Times’s criminal case due by 11 July 2021, and every sixty days thereafter. So Ordered. TPrtust-C g. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 1S Janvor y Q2Ooal

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Moss v. Whitcomb, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moss-v-whitcomb-ared-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack