1

All of the individual Defendants in this action are, or were, law enforcement officials of

the Wayne County, Michigan government during the pertinent dates within Townes’ complaint;

namely, Sheriff Warren C. Evans, Chief Sheriff Jerial Heard, and Deputy Sheriff Ali Mazloum.

The remaining Defendant, County of Wayne of Michigan - the movant of the currently pending

motion - is an entity within the State of Michigan municipal government.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CALDON TOWNES,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF WAYNE, WARREN C. EVANS,

SHERIFF and CHIEF JERIAL HEARD and DEPUTY

SHERIFF ALI MAZLOUM, Individually, and in their

official capacities,

Defendants

Case No. 09-10693

Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

ORDER

One of the Defendants in this lawsuit, County of Wayne (Michigan), has filed a motion

which, if granted, would stay the commencement of the trial in this case during the pendency of

an interlocutory appeal by the remaining Defendants to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (“Sixth

Circuit”) relating to the issue of qualified immunity. This request for relief is opposed by the

Plaintiff, Caldon Townes. For the reasons that have been stated below, Wayne County’s motion

for a stay will be granted.

I.

This lawsuit relates to an accusation by Caldon Townes who maintains that he was, inter

alia, falsely imprisoned by the Defendants1

 whose allegedly wilful and wanton misconduct,

2:09-cv-10693-JAC-MKM Doc # 51 Filed 07/19/11 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 739
2

Generally speaking, the filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of

jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal. Inland Bulk Transfer Co. v.

Cummins Engine Co., 332 F.3d 1007, 1013 (6th Cir. 2003). As to that portion of the case,

jurisdiction is transferred to the appellate court (with the exception of those matters that are in

aid of the appeal). 

2

deliberate indifference and gross negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress were

committed in violation of his constitutional rights under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

 In an order that was entered on April 5, 2011, the Court denied the Defendants’ motion to

dismiss this lawsuit and/or to enter a summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds as to all of

them except as to the movant, County of Wayne. 

II.

In its motion to stay the proceedings, Wayne County correctly notes that the denial of a

qualified immunity defense entitles the affected party to seek an immediate appellate review.2

Berryman v. Rieger, 150 F.3d 561, 562 (6th Cir. 1988) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530

(1985)). Moreover, since this doctrine is designed to shield public officials from any unwarranted

disruptions that may have been caused by discovery issues and a trial, a party who appeals an

adverse qualified immunity ruling is entitled to have the underlying action stayed pending the

resolution of an appellate review. Kennedy v. City of Cleveland, 797 F.2d 297, 299-300 (6th Cir.

1986) (recognizing that “a claim of immunity raises an interest in an early, and inexpensive,

termination of the litigation,” and noting that if summary judgment predicated on claim of immunity

is denied, the aggrieved party is entitled to resolution of issue on appeal). 

Wayne County acknowledges that, inasmuch as it was not subject to the ruling by this Court

on the qualified immunity issue in April 2011, the now-pending trial could proceed without the

2:09-cv-10693-JAC-MKM Doc # 51 Filed 07/19/11 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 740
3

presence of the other Defendants. Nevertheless, it seeks to obtain a stay of the trial because the

question of its liability is “inextricably intertwined” with those issues that have been raised by the

individual officers’ qualified immunity appeal.

Townes challenges this characterization, arguing that his claims against the County are not

dependent on his dispute with the individual officers. In support of his claim, he cites Bates v. Dura

Automotive Systems, Inc., 625 F.3d 283, 286-87 (6th Cir. 2010), for its view that issues are

“inextricably intertwined” for purposes of appeal only “ if the resolution of the properly appealable

issue ‘necessarily and unavoidably’ [will decide] the non-appealable issue.’” Yet, a careful reading

of Bates reveals that it does not support the position which has been advanced by Townes. 

In Bates, a group of employees filed a lawsuit, in which they collectively challenged their

employer’s drug testing policy under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“the ADA”). The only

issue certified for appellate review was a determination by the district court that a person need not

be disabled in order to pursue claims under a certain provision of the ADA. The Sixth Circuit

resolved that issue, but declined to address a separate challenge to other aspects of the district

court’s ruling because those issues were not “inextricably intertwined,” i.e. “coterminous with, or

subsumed in,” the main aspects of the appeal. Id. at 287. In the judgment of the court, there was

no basis upon which it could exercise its pendent appellate jurisdiction. This was the primary reason

that the appellate court addressed whether the two issues were “inextricably intertwined.” Thus,

contrary to Townes’ representations, the analysis in Bates has virtually no impact on whether the

trial in this case can proceed during the pendency of the other Defendants’ appeal.

Upon reviewing the record, the Court finds that a stay of the proceedings against the County

is a recognition of the best use of its judicial time and resources. Although the issues in the two

2:09-cv-10693-JAC-MKM Doc # 51 Filed 07/19/11 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 741
4

lawsuits are not necessarily identical, the liability of the County, if any, is, in some respects, tied to

the issues on appeal; namely, whether any of the individual officers can be said to have committed

a constitutional violation of a clearly established right. In this regard, the Court perceives a potential

risk of reaching inconsistent results if the case against the County is allowed to proceed without a

decision from the Sixth Circuit. Moreover and in the interest of avoiding piecemeal litigation -

especially when no prejudice to Townes has been shown, the Court deems it appropriate to stay the

trial in this matter pending a resolution of the qualified immunity issue by the Sixth Circuit.

III.

Therefore, for the reasons that have been set forth above, the request for a stay of the

proceedings by Wayne County must be, and is, granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2011 s/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. 

Detroit, Michigan JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR.

 United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to their

respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on July 19, 2011

s/ Kay Doaks 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-10693-JAC-MKM Doc # 51 Filed 07/19/11 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 742