1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ALAN THIBAULT, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-11358 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

EDWARD WIERSZEWSKI, 

 Defendant. 

_____________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS (ECF #35) 

 In this action, Plaintiff Alan Thibault alleges that Defendant Edward 

Wierszewski violated the Fourth Amendment by arresting him without probable 

cause and by maliciously prosecuting him. (See Compl., ECF #1.) Wierszewski 

moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. (See ECF #12.) 

The Court granted that motion in part and denied it in part in an Amended Opinion 

and Order dated June 24, 2016. (See ECF #29.) Specifically, the Court granted 

Wierszewski summary judgment with respect to Thibault’s malicious prosecution 

claim but denied summary judgment with respect to the arrest-without-probablecause claim. (See id. at Pg. ID 812.) 

 Wierszewski thereafter appealed this Court’s ruling to the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. (See ECF #30.) That court dismissed the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction in an Opinion dated June 9, 2017. (See ECF #33). 
 2 

 On August 4, 2017, Wierszewski filed a motion in this Court in which he 

requested a stay of proceedings while he files a petition for a writ of certiorari in the 

United States Supreme Court. (See ECF #35.) Wierszewski seeks a stay “pending a 

final determination on appeal by the U.S. Supreme Court and/or Sixth Circuit Court 

of Appeals [in the event the Supreme Court remands the matter to that court].” (Id.

at Pg. ID 905.) Thibault opposes the requested stay. (See ECF #36.) 

 As Thibault concedes (see id. at Pg. ID 909), “[t]he power to stay proceedings 

is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the 

causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for 

litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). A district court 

therefore has “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 

control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). 

 Wierszewski’s requested stay is an appropriate exercise of this “broad 

discretion.” Most importantly, the stay should be relatively limited in time. 

Wierszewski has represented to the Court that he will file his petition with the 

Supreme Court before October 11, 2017, and that the Supreme Court will likely act 

on that petition before the end of the year. (See ECF #35 at ¶¶ 10-11, Pg. ID 904.) 

Thus, the Court and the parties will know in a relatively short period whether the 

Supreme Court will review the case or whether the case will return to this court. 

Moreover, if Wierszewski were to prevail in the Supreme Court, or in the Sixth 
 3 

Circuit if the Supreme Court reversed that court’s ruling and remanded for 

reconsideration of Wierszewski’s appeal, that would likely resolve this action and 

render any further action by this Court moot. Accordingly, the Court concludes that 

the best use of judicial resources is to stay this action for a short period of time while 

Wierszewski pursues appellate review in the United States Supreme Court. 

 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Wierszewski’s motion to stay 

proceedings (ECF #35) is GRANTED. After the Supreme Court issues its ruling 

on Wierszewski’s petition for certiorari, the Court will set a telephonic status 

conference in order to discuss whether the stay should be lifted at that time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: October 4, 2017 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on October 4, 2017, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764