Sanders v. Rodriguez

Opinion

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

JAY DANIELS SANDERS PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 6:22-cv-06060

ISAAC RODRIGUEZ (USMS), ALLEN CONSTANT (DFT Investigator), STEPHEN ELROD (Garland County Sheriff’s Office), SHERIFF MIKE MCCORMICK (Garland County), JASON LAUERANCE (Garland County), JANE DOE (Special Agent FBI), and JOHN DOE (DEA) DEFENDANTS

ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed on September 13, 2022, by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 12. Judge Bryant recommends staying and administratively terminating Plaintiff Jay Daniels Sanders’ Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8) pending the resolution of Plaintiff’s state criminal case. Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Isaac Rodriguez, Allen Constant, Stephen Elrod, Mike McCormick, Jason Lauerance, and Jane and John Does seeking compensatory and punitive damages. ECF No. 8. He claims that, on January 27, 2022, Defendants violated his constitutional rights by interrogating him without his parole officer present after he was arrested for possessing psilocybin mushrooms, a Class D felony. ECF No. 8. However, the case relating to his January 27 arrest remains open in Garland County Circuit Court. See State v. Sanders, No. 26-cr-22-181. Therefore, Judge Bryant recommends abstaining from considering Plaintiff’s instant § 1983 action pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). ECF No. 12, at 4. Further, because Plaintiff seeks damages, Judge Bryant recommends staying, rather than dismissing, the instant action. ECF No. 12, at 5; see also Night Clubs, Inc. v. City of Fort Smith, 163 F.3d 475, 481 (8th Cir. 1998) (explaining that “where damages are sought . . . the Supreme Court instructs that traditional abstention principles generally require a stay as the

appropriate mode of abstention”). Plaintiff has not objected, and the time for doing so has passed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Being well and sufficiently advised, and finding no clear error on the face of the record, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in toto. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8) is hereby STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED pending the resolution of Plaintiff’s state criminal case. Following the final resolution of Plaintiff’s state criminal case, Plaintiff will have thirty (30) days to file a Motion to Reopen the instant action. However, the Court will summarily dismiss the instant action should Plaintiff fail to file a Motion to Reopen within those thirty (30) days. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 7th day of October, 2022.

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