IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ANDY HOPE WILLIAMS JR., )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. 20 CV 02549

)

vs. ) Honorable Judge John J. Tharp, Jr.

)

OFFICER MATTHEW HUBER, OFFICER ) 

TIMOTHY YOUNG, OFFICER STEVE )

MARTIN and OFFICER ANTONIO )

PISCOPO, ) 

)

Defendants. )

AMENDED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEEDINGS

(AMENDED TO ATTACH CORRECT EXHIBIT 1)

Defendants, Officer Matthew Huber, Officer Timothy Young, Officer Steve Martin and 

Officer Antonio Piscopo, by and through their attorneys, John B. Murphey, Odelson, Sterk, 

Murphey, Frazier & McGrath, Ltd., respectfully move this Court for a stay of proceedings pending 

the resolution of a related criminal proceeding. In support of this motion, Defendants state:

1. On August 27, 2019, Plaintiff’s vehicle was pulled over by one or more of the 

individual defendant officers at which point he was given a single traffic citation. 

2. A year later, Plaintiff filed his original complaint in this action. The complaint has 

since been amended.

3. The traffic ticket case has still not been adjudicated. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1

and made a part hereof is a true and correct copy of the Docket in this case. The next Court date 

in the ticket case is on August 18, 2021. See Exhibit 1, p. 8. No trial date has been set.

Case: 1:20-cv-02549 Document #: 65 Filed: 07/02/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:385
2

4. Many of the claims that Plaintiff has pending before this Court involve the same 

operative facts and circumstances as those in the ticket case. In particular, Counts I-V all depend 

on the absence of probable cause in connection with the traffic stop resulting in the ticket.

5. Where a criminal action is simultaneously pending with civil litigation, a court 

may stay the civil proceedings. See United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n. 27 (1970) (“[f]ederal 

courts have deferred civil proceedings pending the completion of criminal prosecutions when the

interests of justice seemed to require such an action”). Such a stay contemplates “special

circumstances” and the need to avoid substantial and irreparable prejudice. United States v. 6250 

Ledge Rd., 943 F.2d 721, 729 n.9 (7

th Cir. 1991).

6. “Federal courts have deferred civil proceedings pending the completion of parallel 

criminal prosecutions when the interests of justice seemed to require such action . . .” Kordel, 

397 U.S. at 12 n. 27, 90 S. Ct. 763 (citing cases). See, e.g., United States v. Michelle's Lounge, 

No. 91 C 5783, 1992 WL 194652, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Aug.6, 1992) (“Conducting civil discovery 

while the related criminal investigation is continuing would compromise that investigation.”); 

Marino v. Hegarty, No. 86 C 6759, 1987 WL 9582, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr.10, 1987) (“It would be 

inappropriate to proceed with this [civil] case during the ongoing criminal investigation.”).

7. In determining whether to stay civil proceedings based on the existence of criminal

proceedings, a court may consider a variety of factors, such as: (1) whether the two actions involve

the same subject matter, (2) whether the two actions are brought by government, (3) the posture 

of the criminal proceedings, (4) the public interests at stake; (5) the plaintiff’s interest and possible

prejudice to the plaintiff, and (6) the burden that any particular aspect of the proceedings may

impose on the defendants. Doe v. City of Chicago, 360 F. Supp. 2d 880, 881 (N.D. Ill. 2005). 

8. The totality of the circumstances favor a stay. In sum, the similarity of parties, 

Case: 1:20-cv-02549 Document #: 65 Filed: 07/02/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:386
3

issues, and relevant facts between the traffic case and this case all argue for a stay of this case 

pending resolution of the traffic case. If there is a conviction in the ticket case, it will likely give 

rise to summary judgment in this case based on Heck-bar principles. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 

477 (1994); Morgan v. Schott, 914 F.3d 1115, 1120 (7th Cir. 2019).

9. Plaintiff’s obvious misuse of the present litigation to pursue a personal agenda also 

favors a stay of the proceedings in this case.

Therefore, in the interest of justice, this court should exercise its discretion to stay the civil 

case in its entirety until the completion of the state court traffic ticket case. 

Respectfully submitted,

Officer Matthew Huber, et al., Defendants

By: /s/ John B. Murphey 

Their Attorney

John B. Murphey

ARDC No. 1992635

Odelson, Sterk, Murphey, Frazier & McGrath, Ltd.

3318 West 95th Street

Evergreen Park, Illinois 60805

Tel: 708-424-5678

jmurphey@osmfm.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02549 Document #: 65 Filed: 07/02/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:387
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 2, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing document with 

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of said filing to all 

parties listed below:

Andy Hope Williams Jr.

P.O. Box 681

Westmont, IL 60559

630-479-7330

Hope5780@yahoo.com

By: /s/ John B. Murphey 

John B. Murphey

ARDC No. 1992635

Odelson, Sterk, Murphey, Frazier & McGrath, Ltd.

3318 West 95th Street

Evergreen Park, Illinois 60805

Tel: 708-424-5678

jmurphey@osmfm.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02549 Document #: 65 Filed: 07/02/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:388