Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-6_13-cv-00300/USCOURTS-alnd-6_13-cv-00300-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

JASPER DIVISION

JAMISON CARR, }

 }

Plaintiff, }

 } CASE NO. 6:13-cv-300-SLB

v. }

 }

CITY OF VERNON, et al., }

 }

Defendant. }

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case is before the court on Defendant Redus Sisson’s Motion to Dismiss,

Abate and/or Stay. (Doc. 33.) After hearing the parties’ arguments and reviewing

1/

the briefs and relevant law, the court find that the motion is due to be DENIED.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 13, 2013, plaintiffJamison Carr [“Plaintiff”] filed suit against the

City of Vernon, Alabama, City of Vernon police chief Ted Collins, and City of

Vernon law enforcement officers Brandon Stephens, and Davy Eaves in their

individual and official capacities. (Doc. 1.) The Complaint, which has since been

amended, asserted a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and claims under Alabama

state law for negligence, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duties, intentional

 Reference to a document number, [“Doc. ___”], refers to the number assigned to each 1/

document as it is filed in the court’s record.

FILED

 2014 May-05 PM 12:06

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 6:13-cv-00300-SLB Document 58 Filed 05/05/14 Page 1 of 6
infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. (Doc.

39.)

The events giving rise to the action stem from an altercation between plaintiff

and an individual named Redus Sisson at a carwash in Vernon, Alabama. (Id at 2.)

According the Complaint, Sisson approached and threatened plaintiff at the carwash,

and plaintiff retreated to his vehicle and called 911. (Id at 2-3.) Defendants Brandon

Stephens [“Stephens”] and Davy Eaves [“Eaves”], both law enforcement officers,

responded to the 911 call. (Id at 3.) Eaves questioned plaintiff who emphatically

denied hitting Sisson with his truck.(Id.) After questioning plaintiff, Eaves, Stephens,

Sisson, and an individual named Chris Galloway [“Galloway”] congregated around

Eaves’s police car for approximately 5-7 minutes. (Id.) Plaintiff was subsequently

arrested and indicted for assault in the 2nd degree and attempted murder. (Id at 5.) A

jury found plaintiff not guilty of assault or attempted murder. (Id at 6.)

Following the filing of the Complaint, Stephens and Eaves filed Motions to

Dismiss the Complaint on a variety of grounds. (Docs. 4 and 7.) Plaintiff requested

an opportunity to amend the Complaint to cure the alleged deficiencies, which would

render moot the Motions to Dismiss. (Doc. 14.) The court granted the Motion to

Amend, (doc. 15), and plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on June 18, 2013, (doc

17). The Amended Complaint added Sisson (“Sisson”) and Galloway (“Galloway),

2

Case 6:13-cv-00300-SLB Document 58 Filed 05/05/14 Page 2 of 6
who had witnessed the incident, as defendants. Galloway has since been dismissed

via joint stipulation. (Doc. 53.) Plaintiff requested leave to file a second amended

complaint on July 18, 2013, (doc. 26), which was granted. The second Amended

Complaint was filed on November 25, 2013. (Doc. 39.)

The claims against Sisson, a private citizen, are violations of civil rights under

§ 1983, false imprisonment, false arrest, and malicious prosecution. (Doc. 39 at 8-10,

12.) On September 21, 2012, Sisson filed a complaint against plaintiff in Lamar

County Circuit Court alleging negligence, assault, and battery in connection with the

car wash incident. (Doc. 33 at 5-6.) Plaintiff filed an answer in state court on

November 6, 2012 and included a counterclaim against Sisson for negligence,

wantonness, and slander. (Doc. 33 at 8-11.)

Sisson filed a “Motion to Dismiss, Abstain from, Abate and/or Stay” in this

court on October 25, 2013. (Doc. 33.) Sisson contends that “the claims asserted by

Carr against Sisson in the present action arise out of the same circumstances and

events that are the subject matter of the state court action.” (Doc. 33 at 2.) Sisson

thus moves this court to “dismiss, abstain from, abate and/or stay the present action

as between Carr and Sisson...” Id. 

Plaintiff filed “Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Sisson’s Motion to Dismiss,

Abstain From, Abate and/or Stay” on December 3, 2013, arguing that Colorado

3

Case 6:13-cv-00300-SLB Document 58 Filed 05/05/14 Page 3 of 6
River abstention does not or should not apply to stay actions involving § 1983 2/

claims. (Doc. 45 at 1-2.) Sisson then filed a “Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to

Defendant Sisson’s Motion to Dismiss, Abstain From, Abate and/or Stay” on

December 30, 2013, contending that the court should at least stay plaintiff’s state law

claims. (Doc. 48 at 1-2.)

DISCUSSION

Colorado River abstention requires the court to weigh six factors to decide

whether “exceptional circumstances” are present to justify a stay. The Colorado

River factors are:

(1) the order in which the courts assumed

jurisdiction over property; (2) the relative

inconvenience of the fora; (3) the order in which

jurisdiction was obtained and the relative progress of

the two actions; (4) the desire to avoid piecemeal

litigation; (5) whether federal law provides the rule

of decision; and (6) whether the state court will

adequately protect the rights of all parties.

Moorer v. Demopolis Waterworks and Sewer Bd., 374 F.3d 994, 997 (11th Cir. 2004)

(citing TranSouth Financial Corp. v. Bell, 149 F.3d 1292, 1294-95 (11th Cir. 1998)).

However, the factors must be weighed “with a heavy bias in favor of exercising

jurisdiction”. TranSouth Financial Corp. v. Bell, 149 F.3d 1292, 1295 (11th Cir.

 Colorado River Water Conservation District v. U.S., 424 U.S. 880 (1976). 2/

4

Case 6:13-cv-00300-SLB Document 58 Filed 05/05/14 Page 4 of 6
1998). This is because federal courts have a “virtually unflagging obligation . . . to

exercise the jurisdiction given them.” Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v.

U.S., 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1997). The court held that “the rule is that ‘the pendency

of an action in the state court is no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in

the Federal court having jurisdiction’” Id.

This analysis “does not rest on a mechanical checklist, but on a careful

balancing of the important factors as they apply to a given case, with the balance

heavily weighted in favor of the exercise of jurisdiction. The weight to be given to

any one factor may vary greatly from case to case.” Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp.

v. Mercury Const. Corp., 460 U.S. 16 (1983).

Factor 1 listed above is irrelevant because there is no property at issue. Factor

2 is neutral, in that the respective courts are both easily accessed by the parties. 

Factor 3 is also neutral. Although the state court case was filed first, based on the

information before this court, the state court case has not progressed to the point

where it would make sense to stay this action. Factor 4, regarding piecemeal

litigation, would normally favor a stay, but only as to the state law claims. However,

the state law claims in state court are not the same as those in Federal court.

Moreover, the § 1983 claims are not before the state court. Factor 5 weighs against

a stay because Federal law governs the rule of decision in § 1983 cases. Finally,

5

Case 6:13-cv-00300-SLB Document 58 Filed 05/05/14 Page 5 of 6
factor 6 weighs against a stay because “Congress has determined that the opportunity

to proceed in a Federal forum is necessary to protect the rights of Sec. 1983

plaintiffs.” Forehand v. First Alabama Bank of Dothan, 727 F.2d 1033, 1035 (11th

Cir. 1984.)

On consideration of the relevant factors and the general presumption that

federal courts should exercise their jurisdiction barring exceptional circumstances,

the court concludes that Sisson’s Motion is due to be denied.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Sisson’s Motion to Dismiss, Abate, and/or Stay will be denied.

DONE this 5th day of May, 2014.

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

Case 6:13-cv-00300-SLB Document 58 Filed 05/05/14 Page 6 of 6