UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-81379-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

CHESTER LEE ROBINSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

QUANCIA HERRING and

NORRIS FUSE, 

Defendants.

______________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ RENEWED MOTION TO STAY 

PENDING RESOLUTION OF MARCUS BRADHAM’S CRIMINAL CASE 

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Renewed Motion to Stay Proceedings 

Pending Resolution of Marcus Bradham’s Criminal Case (“Motion”) filed by Defendants Quancia

Herring and Norris Fuse [ECF No. 139]. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition [ECF No. 142]. 

Defendants filed a Reply [ECF No. 144]. The Court has carefully considered the Motion, the 

related filings, the record, and the applicable law. For the following reasons, the Motion is 

GRANTED.

1

 

I. BACKGROUND

On September 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed his pro se Amended Complaint pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 [ECF No. 6]. The Court screened the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A and found that it stated a plausible Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claim

1 On June 14, 2023, the Court denied Defendants’ initial Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending 

Resolution of a Third Party’s State Criminal Case [ECF No. 94]. Factual developments since then, 

most significantly, Marcus Bradham’s deposition in the instant case on September 25, 2023, have 

changed the Court’s analysis [ECF No. 139-11]. 

Case 9:22-cv-81379-AMC Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2023 Page 1 of 5
CASE NO. 22-81379-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

2

against Defendants Herring and Fuse [ECF No. 17]. The Complaint alleged that Plaintiff was 

assaulted on January 14, 2022, by Marcus Bradham, another inmate, at the Palm Beach County 

Sheriff’s Office Main Detention Center [ECF No. 6 p. 6]. 

On August 22, 2022, approximately one month prior to Plaintiff filing his Amended 

Complaint, the State Attorney for the Fifteen Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County 

charged Marcus Bradham with one count of Aggravated Battery (Deadly Weapon), in violation of 

Fla. Stat. § 784.045(1) and (2) [ECF No. 139-2]. The Information alleged that Bradham, “on or 

about January 14, 2022 . . . did actually and intentionally touch or strike [Plaintiff] . . . and in doing 

so used a shank, a deadly weapon” [ECF No. 139-2 p. 2]. Bradham pled not guilty [ECF No. 139-

3]. As of the date of this Order, Bradham’s criminal case is ongoing, and the next scheduled court 

date is on January 8, 2024, for a plea conference.

2

Defense counsel took Bradham’s deposition in the instant case on September 25, 2023 

[ECF No. 139-11]. Bradham repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination in response to counsel’s questions about what occurred on January 14, 2022, about 

whether Bradham and Plaintiff had a conflict prior to January 14, 2022, and about the nature of 

their relationship generally [ECF No. 139-11 pp. 4–9]. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ARGUMENT

Defendants argue in their Motion that the interests of justice require the Court to stay the 

instant proceedings until the conclusion of Marcus Bradham’s state criminal case 

2 The Court takes judicial notice of the state court docket in case number 50-2022-CF-006182-

AXXX-MB. See Paez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 947 F.3d 649, 651 (11th Cir. 2020) (citing 

Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)). Consistent with the Court’s exercise of judicial notice, the Clerk is 

INSTRUCTED to include as part of the record in this case the Fifteenth Circuit’s docket in case 

number 50-2022-CF-006182-AXXX-MB, available at 

https://appsgp.mypalmbeachclerk.com/eCaseView/search.aspx (last accessed Dec. 19, 2023). 

Case 9:22-cv-81379-AMC Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2023 Page 2 of 5
CASE NO. 22-81379-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

3

[ECF No. 139 pp. 9–16 (citing United States v. Lot 5, Fox Grove, Alachua Cnty., Fla., 23 F.3d 

359, 364 (11th Cir. 1994))]. Federal district courts have broad discretion to stay proceedings,

incident to their power to manage their dockets. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 707 (1997). “[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.’” Lot 5, Fox Grove, Alachua County, 

Fla., 23 F.3d at 364 (quoting United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12–13 (1970)). Factors that 

courts are to consider in evaluating whether to grant a stay include “‘the degree and severity of 

overlap between the civil and criminal proceedings; whether the criminal charges are hypothetical 

or, by contrast, whether an indictment or its equivalent has been issued; and the specificity of the 

invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege relative to the civil proceeding.” Young v. Peraza, 

No. 15-60968, 2015 WL 4639736, at *1 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (Cohn, J.) (quoting Gonzalez v. Israel, 

No. 15–60060, 2015 WL 4164772, at *3 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (Bloom, J.)). 

At this point, reviewing the circumstances as they currently stand, the Court is persuaded 

that a stay of this action is warranted pending resolution of Bradham’s ongoing criminal case. The 

first and “most important” factor is the degree to which there is overlap between the issues 

presented in the civil and criminal cases. Pellegrino v. Wengert, 147 F. Supp. 3d 1379, 1381 (S.D. 

Fla. 2015) (Rosenberg, J) (quoting Love v. City of Lanett, 2009 WL 252371, at *2 (M.D. Ala. 

2009)). There is significant factual overlap here. Both the civil lawsuit and criminal case center 

on the January 14, 2022, alleged altercation between Plaintiff and Bradham. The evidence and 

witnesses that will be presented in Bradham’s criminal case will most likely be the same evidence 

and witnesses presented as part of Plaintiff’s civil case. This degree of overlap is a significant 

factor in the Court’s decision to grant a stay. Pellegrino, 147 F. Supp. 3d at 1381. 

Case 9:22-cv-81379-AMC Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2023 Page 3 of 5
CASE NO. 22-81379-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

4

The second factor favoring granting a stay is that Bradham’s criminal prosecution is 

ongoing, and most significantly, that Bradham—a crucial witness—invoked his Fifth Amendment 

privilege against self-incrimination when Defendants’ counsel deposed him in this lawsuit 

[ECF No. 139-11 pp. 4–9]. Absent a stay, there is a material risk that Defendants will be 

significantly prejudiced in their ability to conduct discovery and defend against Plaintiff’s 

allegations, based on Bradham’s asserted Fifth Amendment privilege.3 See, e.g., Dean v. Douglas, 

No. 12-CV-120, 2012 WL 6151137 (M.D. Ga. 2012) (noting that plaintiff’s “interest in an 

expeditious resolution” did not “outweigh the great likelihood for prejudice to Defendants that 

would result from allowing this civil action to proceed,” where “any discovery [ ] would largely 

result in [plaintiff’s] same repeated” Fifth Amendment invocations). On the flip side, the Court 

finds that any prejudice to Plaintiff from staying this proceeding is minimal. 

Finally, granting a stay pending Bradham’s criminal case will further the public’s interest 

in preserving scarce judicial resources by likely narrowing the issues to be decided in the civil 

proceeding. Grand Jury Proc. (Williams), 995 F.2d 1013, 1020 n.11 (11th Cir. 1993) (“Although 

stays delay civil proceedings, they may prove useful as the criminal process may determine and 

narrow the remaining civil issues.”); see also Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Jones, No. 08-0211-WSB, 2008 WL 4949847, at *5 (S.D. Ala. 2008) (“[T]he interests of efficiency and conservation of 

scarce judicial resources weigh in favor of allowing the state criminal proceedings against [litigant] 

to run their course before embarking on the time-consuming . . . process of litigating these civil 

proceedings.”). 

3 A critical inquiry in this case is whether Plaintiff faced a serious risk of harm related to threats 

made by Bradham, and whether Defendants had subjective knowledge of that risk. See, e.g., 

Goodman v. Kimbrough, 718 F.3d 1325, 1331–32 (11th Cir. 2013). 

Case 9:22-cv-81379-AMC Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2023 Page 4 of 5
CASE NO. 22-81379-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

5

In sum, the interests of justice warrant a stay. There is a large degree of overlap between 

the issues presented in Plaintiff’s civil case and Bradham’s criminal proceedings. There is a 

substantial risk of prejudice to Defendants in not granting a stay and only minimal risk of prejudice 

to Plaintiff, if any, in granting a stay. Finally, granting a stay promotes the public’s interest in 

judicial efficiency and conservation of scarce judicial resources. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 707; Lot 5, 

Fox Grove, Alachua Cnty., Fla., 23 F.3d at 364; Grand Jury Proc. (Williams), 995 F.2d at 1020 

n.11. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Stay Proceedings [ECF No. 139] is GRANTED.

2. This case is STAYED.

3. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE FOR STATISTICAL 

PURPOSES ONLY, without prejudice to either side. 

5. Within 30 days of the conclusion of Bradham’s state criminal matter, the parties shall 

meaningfully attempt to confer, and Defendants thereafter shall file a Status Report 

advising the Court of the conclusion of the criminal matter and detailing any anticipated 

next steps in this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Fort Pierce, Florida, this 19th day of December

2023.

AILEEN M. CANNON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 9:22-cv-81379-AMC Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/20/2023 Page 5 of 5