UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-21979-CIV-ALTONAGA/Goodman

MIKE ELBERT NEAL, 

Plaintiff,

v.

UNIT OFFICER DELMAN 

LUMPKINS, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant, Chief Angela Lawrence’s 

(“Lawrence[’s]”) Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of State Criminal and 

Administrative Investigations [ECF No. 16],1 filed on June 12, 2020 — within two weeks of 

service of the Complaint [ECF No. 1]. (See Return of Service [ECF No. 9]). The Court has 

considered the Motion; Plaintiff, Mike Elbert Neal’s (“Neal[’s]”) Response [ECF No. 19]; 

Lawrence’s Reply [ECF No. 20]; the record; and applicable law. For the following reasons, the 

Motion is granted. 

This action arises out of Neal’s alleged beating in April 2019 by Miami-Dade County 

Correctional Officer Delman Lumpkins; the failure of Defendant, Officer Frade, to intervene and 

stop the beating; and the failures of Lawrence and Defendant, Sergeant Terrance Hamilton, to 

prevent the beating. (See generally Compl.). The Miami-Dade County State Attorney’s Office is 

currently investigating the incident; subsequent to this criminal inquiry, the Security and Internal 

1 Unit Officer Delman Lumpkins filed a separate Motion to Stay Proceedings [ECF No. 26], on June 20, 

2020, requesting the same relief and adopting Lawrence’s arguments. 

Case 1:20-cv-21979-CMA Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 1 of 5
CASE NO. 20-21979-CIV-ALTONAGA/Goodman

2

Affairs Bureau of the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department will finalize its 

related administrative action. (See Lawrence’s Mot. 2; Reply 3). Because all parties will be unable 

to obtain the incident’s investigative file until the investigations close (see Lawrence’s Mot. 2–3), 

and Defendants will be unable to mount a proper defense without that evidence, Defendants seek 

a temporary stay pending the completion of the criminal and administrative investigations (see id.

18). Neal objects, insisting the indeterminate length of the criminal or administrative 

investigations will cause indefinite delay and unfair prejudice. (See Resp. 10). 

District courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to stay proceedings, incidental to 

their powers to control and efficiently manage their dockets. See, e.g., Coquina Invs. v. Rothstein, 

No. 10-60786-Civ, 2011 WL 2530945, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 24, 2011) (citing Landis v. N. Am.

Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936)). “A court must stay a civil proceeding pending resolution of a 

related criminal prosecution only when ‘special circumstances’ so require in the ‘interest of 

justice.’” Pellegrino v. Wengert, 147 F. Supp. 3d 1379, 1381 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (internal quotation 

marks omitted) (citation omitted) (quoting United States v. Lot 5, Fox Grove, Alachua Cty., Fla.,

23 F.3d 359, 364 (11th Cir. 1994)). In assessing whether a stay is appropriate, the Court must 

“weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Big Lots 

Stores, Inc., No. 9:11-cv-80638, 2012 WL 1890547, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 11, 2012) (internal 

quotation marks omitted) (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 255).

Weighing the parties’ competing interests, the Court finds special circumstances tip the 

scales in favor of granting the stay. The incident central to this action is the subject of criminal 

and administrative investigations. Lawrence, who was not present at the incident, has an interest 

in the stay — her defense will presumably rely on eyewitness accounts and other evidence which 

are unavailable to her due to statutory restrictions on disclosing investigative materials and her coCase 1:20-cv-21979-CMA Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 2 of 5
CASE NO. 20-21979-CIV-ALTONAGA/Goodman

3

Defendants’ likely invocation of their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. (See

Lawrence’s Mot. 11–15). The other Defendants, facing similar claims arising from the same 

incident, have overlapping interests (to varying degrees) with Lawrence in staying this action. 

Conversely, Neal does not present a countervailing interest in denying a stay. Neal argues 

he will be unfairly prejudiced by a stay because: (1)“[a]s time passes, it is more likely witnesses 

will forget crucial details of the events, disappear, relocate, or otherwise be unable to testify”; and 

(2) “any delay will also increase the risk of lost and/or destroyed evidence.” (Resp. 10 (alteration 

added)). Yet, Neal undermines his own argument: “Plaintiff believes this case is uncomplicated 

and will require little to no discovery[,] [and] Plaintiff is ready to appear for deposition and 

proceed to trial as soon as the Court allows.” (Id. 10 n.5 (alteration added)). Neal also emphasizes 

the simplicity of the case and importance of a video that shows the beating — a video Neal claims

he already possesses. (See id. 2 & n.1, 7). Videos, unlike eyewitness testimony, are not 

susceptible to fading memory and are unaffected by a stay. Additionally, the investigations 

themselves will presumably preserve witness testimony and other evidence, further diminishing 

the specter of prejudice. (See Reply 4). 

Neal also argues staying the case is premature because the possibility of evidence or 

testimony being unavailable is merely speculative — Defendants have not responded to the 

Complaint and discovery has not commenced. (See Resp. 8–9, 12). Yet, district courts have 

discretion to grant temporary pre-discovery stays when there are predictable (if uncertain) 

discovery obstacles preventing efficient case management. See, e.g., Landis, 299 U.S. at 255 (“[I]t 

would be a ‘scandal to the administration of justice’ . . . if power to coordinate the business of the 

court efficiently and sensibly were lacking altogether.” (alterations added; citation omitted)); 

Case 1:20-cv-21979-CMA Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 3 of 5
CASE NO. 20-21979-CIV-ALTONAGA/Goodman

4

Prosper v. Martin, 239 F. Supp. 3d 1347, 1349–50 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (staying case, pre-discovery, 

pending criminal investigation); Young, 217 F. Supp. 3d at 1356 (same). 

The request for a stay comes prior to any responsive motions, answers, scheduling report, 

or discovery in the action. No discovery will be abandoned. No court deadlines will have to be 

postponed by the invariable motion to extend a scheduling order given the pendency of the 

investigations, the parties’ inability to access discovery produced in those, and the invocation of 

investigative and Fifth Amendment privileges that will stall the orderly progress of this case. 

“Granting the stay now ensures the starting pistol is fired when appropriate, rather than stopping 

the case mid-race.” Young v. Miami-Dade Cty., 217 F. Supp. 3d 1353, 1356 (S.D. Fla. 2016). 

Otherwise, documents, testimony, and evidence unavailable during the pendency of the criminal 

and administrative investigations will impede discovery and cause delays, making it impossible to 

enter a meaningful scheduling order. 

The Court is sympathetic to Neal’s suggestion that the unknown status of the criminal 

investigation might effectively lead to an indefinite stay. (See Resp. 10). The prudent course, 

however, is to permit a temporary stay, requiring periodic updates on the status of the related 

investigations and anticipating the possibility of reinstating this action upon motion of a party 

should those investigations stall. This approach protects against unwarranted delay and vindicates 

the Court’s desire to efficiently manage its cases. The parties, not to mention the Court, stand to 

benefit from proceeding when the parties can develop a fuller and more comprehensive case file.

For the foregoing reasons, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. Defendant, Chief Angela Lawrence’s Motion to Stay . . . [ECF No. 16] is 

GRANTED. Delman Lumpkin’s Motion to Stay Proceedings [ECF No. 26] is 

Case 1:20-cv-21979-CMA Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 4 of 5
CASE NO. 20-21979-CIV-ALTONAGA/Goodman

5

DENIED as moot. This action is STAYED pending completion of the related 

Miami-Dade County State Attorney’s Office and the Security and Internal Affairs 

Bureau of the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department

investigations. The Clerk is directed to mark the case CLOSED for statistical 

purposes only. 

2. The parties shall submit a joint status report every sixty (60) days, beginning 

August 21, 2020, advising the Court of the progress of the criminal and 

administrative investigations. This Order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties 

to this litigation.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 23rd day of June, 2020.

 _________________________________

 CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-21979-CMA Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 5 of 5