Duckett v. Demarco
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:23-cv-00228
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Duckett v. Demarco, Judge Aaron denied Demarco’s request to pause the excessive-force case during Duckett’s state criminal proceedings.
The ruling affects Anthony Bernard Duckett’s excessive-force case against P.O. Daniel Demarco by allowing the case to proceed while Duckett’s state criminal proceedings remain pending.
What happened
Anthony Bernard Duckett sued P.O. Daniel Demarco, alleging that Demarco used excessive force during Duckett’s arrest. Demarco asked the court to pause the civil case until Duckett’s state criminal proceedings ended.
The court said the criminal case and the excessive-force claim did not significantly overlap. Whether Duckett was lawfully arrested or committed a crime did not determine whether Demarco used excessive force during the arrest.
Judge Aaron denied the request for a pause and ordered Demarco to respond to the complaint by August 25, 2023.
The detailed version
- Duckett v. Demarco · No. 1:23-cv-00228
- Stewart Aaron
- Aug. 3, 2023
Background
Anthony Bernard Duckett filed a complaint alleging one claim for excessive force against P.O. Daniel Demarco. The complaint alleges that Duckett was arrested by Demarco on April 1, 2022, and that Demarco’s thumb was dislocated during the arrest. Demarco was served with the complaint on May 12, 2023.
Duckett’s criminal prosecution in Bronx Supreme Court was still pending. Demarco asked the court to stay, or pause, this civil case until the state criminal proceedings ended. Alternatively, he asked for an extension of time to respond to the complaint. On June 8, 2023, the court granted an extension without setting an end date and said it would set a response deadline after deciding the stay request. Duckett did not file an opposition to the stay request.
Legal Standard
The court explained that the party seeking a stay bears the burden of showing why one is needed. A federal district court has discretion to pause a case while a related criminal case proceeds, but a pause is not constitutionally required. Courts in the circuit consider six factors: the overlap between the criminal and civil issues; the criminal case’s status; the plaintiff’s interest in proceeding promptly; the defendant’s interests and burden; the court’s interests; and the public interest.
Analysis
The court found that Demarco did not meet his burden. It concluded that there was no significant overlap between the criminal case and Duckett’s civil claim. The court stated that, regardless of whether Duckett was lawfully arrested or engaged in criminal conduct, the civil claim concerned whether Demarco used excessive force during the arrest. For that reason, the status of the criminal case did not justify a stay.
The court also found that Duckett had an interest in prosecuting the case promptly, that proceeding would not impose an added burden on Demarco, and that both the court’s interest in managing its docket and the public interest favored allowing the case to proceed.
Ruling
Judge Aaron denied Demarco’s motion for a stay. The court ordered Demarco to respond to the complaint no later than August 25, 2023.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.