SCHOLTZ
v.
PRUMMELL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted the plaintiff's motion to continue the stay of the case.
Plaintiff sued sheriff and officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional violations related to searches. The court had previously stayed the case…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Monetary Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
YOUNG, DON WHITE, and JUSTIN PRICE,
Defendants. /
ORDER1
Plaintiff, who is proceeding without a lawyer, moves to continue the stay of this case. (Doc. 36). Defendants have not responded and the time to do so has expired. Plaintiff sues Defendants (a local sheriff and his officers) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his constitutional rights and conspiracy. The actions relate to the searches of a storage facility that led to drug charges in state court.2
35). Since then, Plaintiff entered a plea of nolo contendre in the underlying criminal case (No. 19-000158F) and on September 9, 2021, the state court entered a notice of dismissal. In the plea agreement, Plaintiff expressly reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. On October
8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the state court case. He requests that the Court continue the stay because the state court case is ongoing. The Court finds that continuing the stay is proper. See Doby v. Strength, 758 F. 2d 1405, 1406 (11th Cir. 1985) (Younger abstention is appropriate when a state appellate court is reviewing Fourth Amendment violations at state court trial). As explained in the Court’s prior Order (Doc. 35), the case is stayed only to the extent that Scholtz seeks monetary relief through § 1983. Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Continued Stay (Doc. 36) is GRANTED. 2. This case remains STAYED pending completion of the state-court appeal.
3. Plaintiff must NOTIFY the Court within fourteen (14) days of the conclusion of his state-court appeal. 4. Given the new posture of this case, for the Court’s own internal case management purposes, the Court will administratively close the case pending the completion of the state-court appeal. 5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to administratively close the case pending further Order. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 18, 2021.
vith WPblatrat he
UNITED STATES DISTRICTJUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record