Feedback

Bailey V Weiland

                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN                            
______________________________________________________________________________ 
STEVEN A. BAILEY,                                                         

                   Plaintiff,                                            
    v.                                 Case No. 24-cv-517-pp             

MICHAEL WEILAND, et al.,                                                  

                   Defendants.                                           
______________________________________________________________________________ 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY CASE (DKT. NO. 70)             
   AND STAYING AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE PENDING                 
           CONCLUSION OF PLAINTIFF’S STATE APPEALS                       
______________________________________________________________________________ 

    Plaintiff Steven A. Bailey is proceeding under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against 
several officers from the Milwaukee Police Department. Dkt. No. 37. The plaintiff 
alleges that the officers used excessive force while arresting him, failed to 
intervene and stop the use of force and/or denied him proper medical attention. 
Id. At screening, the court allowed him to proceed under the Fourth and   
Fourteenth Amendment on these claims. Dkt. No. 41.                        
    On June 20, 2025, the court received the defendants’ motion to stay the 
proceedings “pending resolution of parallel criminal proceedings in the   
Wisconsin Court of Appeals.” Dkt. No. 70. In an accompanying brief, the   
defendants explain that on March 19, 2023, the officers arrested the plaintiff 
after the events alleged in his amended complaint. Dkt. No. 71 at 1. The plaintiff 
was charged with sexual assault of a minor and on January 10, 2024, a jury 
found him guilty after trial. Id. at 2. On February 19, 2024, the state court 
sentenced the plaintiff to nineteen years’ imprisonment. Id. Nine days later, he 
filed his notice of intent to pursue post-conviction relief. Id.; see State v. Bailey, 
Milwaukee County Case Number 2023CF1237 (available at https://            
wcca.wicourts.gov/case.html. The defendants do not detail the plaintiff’s 
potential claims on appeal, likely because he has not yet filed an appeal or post-
conviction challenge. But they assert without elaboration that under Younger v. 
Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), this court “should administratively stay this civil suit 
for money damages pending the resolution of that appeal in the interests of 
equity, comity, [and] federalism.” Id. at 2–3.                            
    The plaintiff opposes the defendant’s motion. Dkt. No. 75. He states that 
under the “Code of Federal Regulations, ‘[s]tays are not favored.’” Id. He asserts 
that “it would be a gross miscarriage of justice to implement any unreasonable 
or undue delay.” Id. The plaintiff says that the defendants “were free to select 
counsel of their own choosing, of which inadequate staffing or scheduling 
conflicts should not be a concern of this court” and would “be punitive against 
the Plaintiff.” Id. He asserts that he “has complied with all requirements and 
requests of this Court,” and he insists that “the same is expected in return” from 
the defendants. Id.                                                       
    Under Younger, “federal courts must abstain from taking jurisdiction over 
federal constitutional claims that may interfere with ongoing state proceedings.” 
Gakuba v. O’Brien, 711 F.3d 751, 753 (7th Cir. 2013). This rule “is designed to 
permit state courts to try state cases free from interference by federal courts.” 
Forty One News, Inc. v. County of Lake, 491 F.3d 662, 665 (7th Cir. 2007) 
(citations omitted). The Seventh Circuit has explained that even after a state trial 
has ended, a federal court must abstain from deciding “constitutional issues 
that are potentially subject to adjudication in [an] appeal” in state court. 
Simpson v. Rowan, 73 F.3d 134, 138 (7th Cir. 1995) (“Younger abstention is 
therefore appropriate while the case works its way through the state appellate 
process.”). The proper application of Younger requires the district court to stay, 
rather than to dismiss, the federal case seeking damages until the state  
proceedings conclude. Gakuba, 711 F.3d at 753 (citing Simpson, 73 F.3d at 
138–39); see Shaw v. County of Milwaukee, Case No. 21-1410, 2022 WL       
1001434, at *2 (7th Cir. Apr. 4, 2022) (advising district courts to stay civil rights 
claims for monetary damages that “may become time-barred by the time the  
state prosecution has ended”).                                            
    The plaintiff filed his §1983 complaint on April 29, 2024, only two months 
after he was sentenced in his state criminal case and filed his notice of intent to 
pursue post-conviction relief. In his federal complaint, the plaintiff challenges 
the actions of the Milwaukee Police Officers who apprehended and arrested him, 
leading to his criminal charge and conviction. The appeals process in his state 
case remains pending, though neither party details the basis for the appeal or 
the post-conviction motion that he plans to file. The docket from the plaintiff’s 
state court criminal case shows the Wisconsin Court of Appeals most recently 
extended his deadline to file a post-conviction motion or a notice of appeal to 
July 29, 2025. See State v. Bailey, Case Number 2023CF1237 (docket entry of 
June 2, 2025). The court agrees with the defendants that there is a risk that any 
adjudication in this federal case could interfere with the state courts’ resolution 
of the plaintiff's appeal or post-conviction challenge. The proper course is to stay 
this federal lawsuit “while the [state criminal] case works its way through the 
state appellate process.” Simpson, 73 F.3d at 138. This case may resume only 
after the plaintiff has exhausted his state court appeals.                
    The plaintiff did not respond to the defendants’ assertion that Younger 
applies in these circumstances. He contends only that the court should not stay 
this case because of “inadequate staffing or scheduling conflicts.” But the 
defendants did not request a stay based on inadequate staffing or scheduling 
conflicts, and do not mention inadequate staffing or scheduling conflicts in their 
motion or brief. The plaintiff's general statement that “stays are not favored” is 
not an adequate reason to deny the defendants’ motion. That also is a curious 
position for the plaintiff to take, given that the plaintiff himself has, in the past, 
asked the court to stay the proceedings. Dkt. No. 76. 
     The court GRANTS the defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings 
pending the plaintiffs exhaustion of his state court appellate remedies. Dkt. 
No. 70. The court ORDERS that this case is STAYED. 
     The court ORDERS that this case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. The 
court will reopen this case only after the plaintiff notifies the court that his 
state court appeals have concluded. 
     Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 23rd day of July, 2025. 
                                   BY THE COURT: 

                                   Chief United States District Judge