Defendant's Attorney: Hammond, Indiana civil rights claim defense lawyers represented the Defendant.

Description: Hammond, Indiana personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendants on civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

On May 12, 2022, the plaintiff, Nathaniel Robinson filed a Complaint alleging various constitutional and state law claims against the defendant, Terry Peck (Peck), a Gary Police Officer, and other police officers with the Gary Police Department. The plaintiff contends, inter alia, that Peck violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force against him during an encounter on or about June 7, 2020. On October 21, 2021, prior to this filing of this complaint, Peck was indicted by the United States of America in the criminal case of United States of America vs. Terry Peck, Cause No. 2:21- CR-149.

Similar to the civil allegations in the present case, Peck’s criminal charges stem from an incident involving accusations of excessive use of force. Peck’s criminal proceeding is currently scheduled for a jury trial on July 17, 2023. Peck has filed the instant motion requesting that the court stay this matter until his criminal proceedings are fully adjudicated. Peck argues that whether he violated another’s constitutional rights are foreseeable issues in both the pending criminal action against him as well as the instant civil matter. Further, Peck argues that allowing the instant civil case to proceed while his criminal case is pending will place him in the precarious position between asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege, and thus potentially prejudicing his defense of the present case, or testifying, and thus potentially prejudicing his defense in the pending criminal proceeding. The plaintiff filed a response in opposition on February 13, 2023. In response, the plaintiff contends that Peck lacks a sufficient basis on which to stay the proceedings in the present case. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that a stay is not warranted because the criminal case involves a different set of operative facts and a different victim. The plaintiff argues that putting Peck in a position where he feels compelled to assert the privilege against self-incrimination does not unfairly prejudice him and does not necessarily warrant a stay in the present civil case. Further, the plaintiff claims that the interests in proceeding expeditiously outweigh any prejudice caused to Peck.

Outcome: CASE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 43 Stipulation of Dismissal. (jss) (Entered: 01/02/2024)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: