Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02001/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02001-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

According to the criminal docket, this appears to be the sixth trial setting.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Elvira Fernandez, individually and as CoPersonal Representative of the Estate of

Daniel Frank Rodriguez; Frank Rodriquez,

individually and as Co-Personal

Representative of the Estate of Daniel

Frank Rodriguez, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

City of Phoenix; Richard Allen Chrisman,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-02001-PHX-FJM

ORDER

We have before us Chrisman's motion to stay (doc. 46), plaintiffs' response (doc. 57),

and Chrisman's reply (doc. 59).

On October 5, 2010, Chrisman, then a Phoenix police officer, allegedly shot and killed

plaintiffs' son and his dog. Chrisman was charged the next day with second degree murder,

aggravated assault, and animal cruelty. The criminal case, which has been continued many

times and has been designated complex, is set for trial on August 8, 2012.1

 Plaintiffs filed

this action on August 31, 2011. A Rule 16 Scheduling Order was issued on January 13, 2012

(doc. 13). The deadline for plaintiffs' expert disclosures has passed. Discovery will close

on September 14, 2012. A firm civil trial date is set for April 16, 2013.

Case 2:11-cv-02001-FJM Document 62 Filed 05/29/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

There is no requirement that all civil proceedings must be stayed pending the outcome

of a related criminal case. Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir.

1995). A criminal defendant "has no absolute right not to be forced to choose between

testifying in a civil matter and asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege." Id. at 326. Not

only may the civil and criminal actions proceed concurrently, but a trier of fact in the civil

action can draw adverse inferences if the Fifth Amendment is invoked. Id. The decision

whether to stay an action is made on a case-by-case basis. Id. In making this determination,

we consider the extent to which Fifth Amendment rights are implicated, and also generally

consider 

(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 persons

not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in the

pending civil and criminal litigation.

Id. at 325. Defendant concedes that the interests of non-parties is not an issue here, but

argues that the remaining factors support staying this action.

Chrisman's Fifth Amendment rights might be implicated in the civil proceeding. Both

this action and the criminal charges Chrisman faces arise out of the circumstances of the

shooting. And plaintiffs have already noticed Chrisman's deposition. 

Implication of Fifth Amendment rights is only one of the factors to consider. Id. at

326. In this case, plaintiffs have an interest in proceeding expeditiously. Their son died over

a year and a half ago. It is impossible to predict when Chrisman's criminal case will

conclude. It has already been pending eighteen months, and there is no guarantee that the

August 2012 trial date is firm. Indeed, Chrisman has repeatedly waived his Arizona speedy

trial rights under Rule 8, Ariz. R. Crim. P. and requested continuances of his trial date. See

Response, exs. B-F. His latest motion to continue the criminal trial was granted on March

14, 2012, only a few weeks before he filed the motion to stay. Response, ex. F. If Chrisman

is convicted and decides to appeal, his Fifth Amendment rights may be implicated for

significantly longer. See Arries v. Univ. OB/GYN, LLC, CV-10-08219-PCT-NVW, 2012

Case 2:11-cv-02001-FJM Document 62 Filed 05/29/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

WL 896355, at *2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 16, 2012). Delay frustrates plaintiffs' chance to be made

whole in a reasonable period of time. An indefinite stay serves neither plaintiffs' nor this

court's interests.

Contrary to Chrisman's argument, this action is not in its infancy. A scheduling

conference was held four months ago. Discovery will close in less than four months.

Moreover, Chrisman has actively participated in this litigation. He participated in the

scheduling conference (doc. 12), served his initial disclosure statement (doc. 14), answered

the complaint (doc. 29), and filed a dispositive motion on the state law claims (doc. 33). On

balance, the circumstances of this case counsel against the issuance of a stay. In particular,

this action is in the heart of discovery and the timing of the criminal trial is uncertain, in part

due to Chrisman's repeated requests for continuances.

Although we appreciate the dilemma Chrisman faces as to whether to invoke his Fifth

Amendment rights, we note that the Rule 16 scheduling order offers him the flexibility to

avoid making this choice. By Chrisman's own design, his criminal trial is set for August 8,

2012. Discovery in this action will not close until September 14, 2012. Chrisman could

decide not to seek further continuances in his criminal case, go to trial in August, and

schedule his deposition after his trial and before discovery closes. We encourage the parties

to work together to reach an amenable solution, subject as always to the Rule 16 scheduling

order, which controls the pace of litigation.

However, if Chrisman chooses to further delay his criminal case, he will face the

possibility of electing to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights here and inviting an adverse

inference. That decision rests not with the court, but with Chrisman.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Chrisman's motion to stay (doc. 46).

DATED this 25th day of May, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02001-FJM Document 62 Filed 05/29/12 Page 3 of 3