1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JERVIS LAVERN GOODRICH, : No. 4:CV-04-1603

:

Plaintiff : (Judge Jones)

:

v. :

:

STEPHEN WILCOX, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

January 18, 2006

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Stay Proceedings and Enlarge Time

to Answer (“the Motion”) (doc. 27) filed by Defendants Stephen Wilcox,

Christopher Soo, Richard Davy, and Kevin Patterson (collectively “Defendants”)

on December 7, 2005. For the reasons that follow, the Motion will be granted.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND/PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

The case sub judice is a civil rights action for damages brought by pro se

plaintiff Jervis Lavern Goodrich (“Plaintiff” or “Goodrich”). As we have

explained in prior Orders, on July 22, 2004, Goodrich filed a complaint in the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against

Pennsylvania State Troopers Stephen Wilcox and Christopher Soo pursuant to 42

Case 4:04-cv-01603-JEJ Document 30 Filed 01/18/06 Page 1 of 6
2

U.S.C. § 1983. (See Rec. Doc. 1). Goodrich alleges that on September 11, 2002,

Defendants Wilcox and Soo made an unlawful investigatory stop of an automobile

at 11:19 p.m. Additionally, Goodrich asserts that due to the illegal stop, his fiancé

at the time, Melissa Kinne, and himself were subjected to an illegal search and

seizure, false arrest, harassment, and illegal incarceration. Goodrich alleges that he

and his fiancé were not given their Miranda warnings and were subjected to Fourth

and Fifth Amendment violations. On April 1, 2005, Plaintiff filed an Amended

Complaint in which he added two defendants, Pennsylvania State Troopers

Richard Davy and Kevin Patterson. (See Rec. Doc. 8). 

A grand jury sitting in the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Pennsylvania returned a four count indictment charging Plaintiff with

conspiracy to manufacture and distribute a controlled substance, theft of anhydrous

ammonia, and possession of listed chemicals/distribution of a controlled substance. 

See United States v. Goodrich, 4:03-cr-36. During his defense against these

charges, Plaintiff filed a motion to suppress all physical evidence seized from his

person, all physical evidence seized from the vehicle, all incriminating statements

he made after he was arrested, and any testimony by Melissa Kinne, the driver of

the vehicle. Id. at doc. 60. Plaintiff sought to suppress this evidence because he

claimed that it had been obtained by the defendants in violation of the Fourth

Case 4:04-cv-01603-JEJ Document 30 Filed 01/18/06 Page 2 of 6
3

Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff specifically claimed that

the stop conducted by Defendants Soo and Wilcox and Plaintiff’s subsequent

arrest, were illegal. 

Following a hearing and oral argument, this Court issued an Order denying

Plaintiff’s motion to suppress. Id. at doc. 95. On August 10, 2004, a jury found

Goodrich guilty on Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and

864(a)(1), conspiracy to manufacture and distribute controlled substances and theft

of anhydrous ammonia, and not guilty on Counts 3 and 4. Id. at doc. 131. The

jury found that Goodrich was an organizer or leader of a criminal conspiracy, that

there was an unlawful discharge of a hazardous or toxic substance, and that the

offense involved the unlawful transportation and storage of a hazardous waste. On

June 10, 2005, the Court sentenced Goodrich to 71 months on each of Counts 1

and 2 to be served concurrently and 6 years supervised release, 6 years on Count 1

and 3 years on Count 2, to be served concurrently. Id. at doc. 170. 

On June 15, 2005, Goodrich appealed his sentence to the Third Circuit Court

of Appeals. See United States v. Goodrich, Appeal No. 05-3071. In his appeal,

Plaintiff challenges this Court’s denial of his motion to suppress. This appeal is

currently pending before the Third Circuit. 

On December 7, 2005, Defendants filed the instant Motion, to which

Case 4:04-cv-01603-JEJ Document 30 Filed 01/18/06 Page 3 of 6
4

Plaintiff submitted a brief in opposition on December 30, 2005. The Motion is

therefore ripe for disposition.

DISCUSSION:

In the Motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff challenges the legality of a

stop and search and that he has also challenged the legality of this same stop and

search in a criminal appeal that is pending. “Because collateral estoppel may apply

to bar the relitigation of plaintiff’s civil rights claim, the Court should stay this

action until plaintiff’s criminal action has been resolved.” (Defs.’ Br. Supp. Mot.

Stay at 3-4). Should the Court grant the stay, Defendants respectfully request leave

to file an answer to the Amended Complaint thirty days after the entry of a final

order by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. 

In response, Plaintiff’s submission indicates he does not believe that his

criminal appeal has anything to do with his civil action, “since the courts have

already made its ruling on the stop and search, the appeal will have no impact on

the ruling, either direction of the appeal.” (Pl.’s Br. Opp. Defs.’ Mot. Stay at 2). 

Plaintiff requests that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion and allow the “case to

proceed.”

Defendants accurately submit that in this civil action Plaintiff challenges the

legality of a stop and search allegedly conducted by the Defendant Pennsylvania

Case 4:04-cv-01603-JEJ Document 30 Filed 01/18/06 Page 4 of 6
5

State Troopers. This stop and search formed the basis of a federal criminal

prosecution of Plaintiff, as previously stated, during which Plaintiff challenged the

legality of the stop and search. As noted, this Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to

suppress evidence obtained from the stop and search. Plaintiff has appealed this

determination to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Because collateral estoppel

may apply to bar the relitigation of the underlying challenge to the legality of the

stop and search, we agree with Defendants that we should stay this action until the

criminal action has been resolved. 

Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, once a court has determined an

issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude

relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action that involves a party

to the first case. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 414 (1980). Collateral estoppel

may be used in a federal civil rights action alleging unconstitutional search and

seizure to preclude the relitigation of an issue that has already been determined in a

criminal suppression proceeding. Id. at 420. As the Third Circuit Court of

Appeals has instructed, where collateral estoppel may apply to bar a civil rights

action, a court should stay the civil action until the criminal court proceedings have

run their course. Bailey v. Ness, 733 F.2d 279, 283 (3d Cir. 1984) (“[A] proper

course would be to stay the federal court proceedings until the state court

Case 4:04-cv-01603-JEJ Document 30 Filed 01/18/06 Page 5 of 6
6

proceedings have run their course or have run out of time in which to be

brought.”).

We will accordingly stay this action pending the disposition of Plaintiff’s

criminal appeal to the Third Circuit. Defendants are provided leave to file an

answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint within thirty days after the entry of a

final order by the Third Circuit in United States v. Goodrich, Appeal No. 05-3071.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings and Enlarge Time to Answer

(doc. 27) is GRANTED.

2. This case shall be stayed pending the disposition of Plaintiff’s

criminal appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in United States

v. Goodrich, Appeal No. 05-3071.

3. Defendants are provided leave to file an answer to Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint within thirty days after the entry of a final order

by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Goodrich,

Appeal No. 05-3071.

s/ John E. Jones III

John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-01603-JEJ Document 30 Filed 01/18/06 Page 6 of 6