The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
DORIS ANN SCOTT and ORIEL )
MOORE, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No.: 2:24-cv-04107-MDH
)
TREVOR FOLEY, in his official and )
Individual capacity as Director of the )
Missouri Department of Corrections, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants Justin Davison, Ryan Williams, William Wells, Craig
Glatczak, Zachary Kopp, and Onyewuchi Nkwocha (collectively “Defendants”) Motion to Stay
Proceedings Pending Criminal Matter (Doc. 99). Defendants filed suggestions in support (Doc.
100), Plaintiffs filed suggestions in opposition (Doc. 107) and Defendants filed a reply (Doc. 114).
The motion is now ripe for adjudication on the merits. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’
Motion to Stay Proceedings is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
This action arises from the death of a prisoner at the Jefferson City Correctional Center.
Plaintiff Doris Ann Scott is a resident of the State of Colorado and the biological mother of
Decedent Othel Moore, Jr. Plaintiff Oriel Moore is a resident of the State of Colorado and the
biological sister of the Decedent. Defendant Trevor Foley is an employee of the State of Missouri
and the Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDOC”). Defendant Kelly Morriss
is an employee of the State of Missouri and the Warden of the Jefferson City Correction Center
(“JCCC”). Defendant Centurion of Missouri, LLC is a limited liability company formed under
Missouri law that provided health care services at JCCC. Defendant Justin Davison is a resident
of Missouri and an employee at the MDOC as the JCCC Corrections Emergency Response Team
(“CERT”) Field Commander. Defendants Justin M. Leggins, Jacob A. Case, Aaron C. Brown,
Gregory H. Varner, Bryanne M. Bradshaw, Ryan Williams, William Wells, Craig Glatzczak,
Zachary Kopp, Onyewuchi Nkwocha, and Sean Reynolds are all residents of Missouri and were
employed at MDOC as members of a MDOC CERT unit. Defendant Jennifer Long is a resident
of Missouri and was an employee of Defendant Centurion of Missouri, LLC.
On December 8, 2023, CERT Defendants initiated cell inspections at JCCC in the housing
unit where Decedent was detained. Allegedly Defendants Leggins, Glatczak and Wells entered
Decedent’s cell. Decedent was removed from his cell with his hands in wrist restraints behind his
back. Defendant Leggins allegedly stepped toward Decedent and pepper sprayed him in the face
at close range. Defendants Wells and Glatzchak allegedly took Decedent to the ground where
Defendant Case administered pepper spray at close range. Decedent was then escorted to the “day
room” where Defendant Davison allegedly ordered Decedent to be placed in a wrap restraint
device. Decedent was also placed in a spit mask, covering a portion of Decedent’s face, including
his mouth and nose. It is further alleged Cert Defendants placed a helmet on Decedent and
transported him to a “dry cell” where Defendants Koop, Bradshaw, Reynolds, and Nkowcha
monitored Decedent. Decedent was alleged to have struggled to breath for 30 minutes before
becoming unresponsive. Defendant Long examined the Decedent before emergency medical
services arrived at JCCC. Decedent was later pronounced dead due to positional asphyxiation as
the cause of death.
Defendants bring their motion seeking a stay of the civil proceedings against them pending
resolution of the criminal cases against Defendants Leggins, Case, Brown and Bradshaw. The
Court will proceed to evaluate the merit of Defendants’ Motion to Stay.
STANDARD
“The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court 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. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “How this can best be done
calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even
balance.” Id. at 254-55. “Justice must be done in both criminal and civil litigation. The rights of a
defendant in a criminal case must, of course, be protected. But this does not mandate a complete
disregard for the rights of civil litigants.” General Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Mfg. Co., 481 F.2d
1204, 1213 (8th Cir. 1973). “A stay of a civil trial until factually related criminal proceedings are
concluded is sometimes warranted. However, a civil defendant cannot hide behind a blanket
invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege.” Koester v. American Republic Invs., Inc., 11 F.3d
818, 823 (8th Cir. 1993). “Therefore, to warrant a stay, a defendant must make a strong showing
either that the two proceedings are so interrelated that he cannot protect himself at the civil trial
by selectively invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege, or that the two trials will so overlap that
effective defense of both is impossible.” Id.
ANALYSIS
I. Motion to Stay Proceedings
Defendants argue that if an adverse inference against one of the criminally charged
defendants from an invocation of Fifth Amendment privilege establishes that one or more of these
defendants engaged in an unconstitutional act, this would directly impact and implicate the defense
of Defendants. Plaintiffs argue that the Court already held that Plaintiffs may proceed with
discovery on topics already addressed in those voluntary statements by the criminally charged
defendants. Thus, it materially narrows the scope of any potential Fifth Amendment objections in
the case. Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that the Eighth Circuit has consistently held that a civil
defendant cannot rely on the mere possibility of a co-defendant asserting the Fifth Amendment to
justify a stay.
“[A] stay of a civil case to permit conclusion of a related criminal prosecution has been
characterized as an extraordinary remedy.” Aldridge v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 4:18-CV-
1677 CAS, 2020 WL 223928, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 15, 2020) (quoting Liggins v. Cohen, 4:16-CV-
413 AGF, slip op. at 3 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 8, 2018)). The decision whether to say civil litigation in
deference to parallel criminal proceedings is discretionary and requires the Court to “assess and
balance the nature and substantiality of the injustices claimed on either side.” Id. (quoting General
Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Mfg. Co., 481 F.2d 1204, 1214-15 (8th Cir. 1973)). The Eighth Circuit has
not specified a set of factors to analyze whether a stay is necessary in light of parallel criminal
proceedings. Id. However, district courts in the Eighth Circuit have generally considered the
following factors adopted by the Ninth Circuit:
(1) The interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or
any particular aspect of it and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the
burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants;
(3) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases and the efficient
use of judicial resources; (4) the interests of person not parties to the civil litigation
and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation.
White v. Feaman, 2018 WL 5831261, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 7, 2018) (quoting Keating v. Office of
Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 325 (9th Cir. 1995)). The Court will examine each factor as it
relates to the current action.
a. Interest of Plaintiffs
Defendants argue that a stay will not unduly prejudice Plaintiffs because the evidence is
durable, and the criminal case may streamline issues. Specifically, Defendants state the requested
stay would be finite; there is minimal danger of lost evidence; the alleged injury is not ongoing;
Plaintiffs are limited to monetary damages; the evidence will not degrade with a temporary stay;
and a stay may result in simplified discovery. Plaintiffs argue they would suffer prejudice and
unnecessary delay if proceedings were paused.
The Court in its prior orders on April 3, 2025, and April 8, 2025, declined to stay
proceedings for Defendants Leggins, Case and Bradshaw based upon a finding that the state
criminal cases have yet to be set for trial and that Plaintiff would suffer prejudice and unnecessary
delay by a stay of proceedings against those defendants. According to records available on
Missouri Case.net, the state criminal cases are still not set for either Defendant Leggins,1
Defendant Case,2 or Defendant Bradshaw.3 The Court finds that Plaintiffs would suffer prejudice
and unnecessary delay by a stay of proceedings in this case. For the reasons stated, the Court finds
this factor weights against a stay of proceedings.
b. Burden on Defendants
Defendants argue that if the civil case proceeds while the criminal case is ongoing,
Defendants will be severally disadvantaged in discovery. Defendants argue that their co-
defendants’ refusal to testify or produce documents may leave them unable to obtain exculpatory
evidence or rebut allegations effectively. Additionally, Defendants argue they have no ability to
obtain an inference favorable to their interests if they are unable, by criminally charged defendants
Fifth Amendment refusal to testify, or to obtain evidence in their case. Plaintiffs argue that this
1 See 24AC-CR00884-01 – ST v. Justin M Leggins.
2 See 24AC-CR00881-01 – ST v. Jacob A Case.
3 See 24AC-CR00882-01 – ST v. Bryanne M Bradshaw.
Court found that Defendants Leggins, Case and Bradshaw had waived the Fifth Amendment as to
their prior statements and failed to show that discovery posed a serious risk of self-incrimination.
There is no dispute that the criminal prosecution and civil case arise out of the same facts
and involve nearly identical issues and witnesses. Defendants Leggins, Case, Brown and Bradshaw
have been indicted and a “stay of a civil case is most appropriate where a party to the civil case
has already been indicted for the same conduct.” Aldridge v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 4:18-
CV-1677 CAS, 2020 WL 223928, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 15, 2020) (quoting S.E.C. v. Gerhardt,
2007 WL 1452236, at *2 (E.D. Mo. May 15, 2007)). However, the Court has already found that
Defendants Leggins, Case and Bradshaw have already waived their Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination as to the topics they have already voluntarily discussed. Further, Defendants
have not been indicted and thus a stay is less appropriate for these Defendants. Therefore, the Court
finds there is minimal prejudice to Defendants in proceeding with discovery in this case. The Court
finds this factor weighs against a stay of proceedings.
c. Convenience of the Court
Defendants argue that a stay of this civil case pending resolution of the parallel criminal
matter will allow this Court, and the parties, the benefit from the findings and discovery work
revealed in the criminal process. Additionally, Defendants argue that the resolution criminal case
might reduce the scope of discovery in this civil case or otherwise simplify the issues. Plaintiffs
argue that there is convenience of the court in the forward momentum of this proceeding and
discovery should proceed.
Given the facts and circumstances of this case the Court finds that giving Defendants a
partial stay would not require the expenditure of significant judicial resources and could potentially
simplify the issues or resolve liability questions in the civil proceedings. See e.g., Ruszczyk v. Noor,
2018 WL 4759838, at *5 (finding stay in case where there was substantial overlap between
criminal proceedings and Section 1983 civil claims against same defendant would conserve
judicial resources, would likely lead to relevant discovery for the civil proceedings, and could
possibly simplify the issues or resolve liability questions in the civil proceedings.). The Court finds
this factor weighs slightly in favor of staying the proceedings.
d. Interests of Persons Not Parties to the Civil Litigation and the Public
Defendants argue that the interests of third parties and the public in this litigation does not
weight against a stay pending the resolution of the parallel criminal matter. In support, Defendants
argue that Plaintiffs seek damages through this suit, not injunctive relief, and injunctive relief is
not available through the Missouri Wrongful Death Statute under which Plaintiffs bring their
claim. Plaintiffs argue the public interest in timely adjudication of serious constitutional claims
involving allegations of deadly force, systemic failure ins a correctional facility, and institutional
deliberate indifference under Monell.
The Court finds that with respect to interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation the
Court finds this factor neutral. Regarding the interest of the public the Court recognizes the public
interest in the prompt resolution of this civil matter. See e.g., Ruszczyk v. Noor, 2018 WL 4759838,
at *6. The Court finds that the fifth factor to weigh against a stay of proceedings.
CONCLUSION
The Court having assessed the five factors for a stay of proceedings in an interrelated civil
and criminal case find a stay of proceedings is not warranted. For the reasons stated, Defendants
Motion to Stay Proceedings as to Defendants Davison, Williams, Wells, Glatczak, Kopp, and
Nkwocha is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 30, 2025 /s/ Douglas Harpool
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE