Maskell v. Hildreth

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
ADAM MASKELL 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 1:23-cv-01048
CHIEF OF POLICE SHAUN HILDRETH,
Warren Police Department; OFFICER
TERRANCE MOORE, Warren Police
Department 	DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Adam Maskell, currently an inmate of the Arkansas Division of Corrections, filed
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Pursuant
to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United
States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and
Recommendation. ECF No. 20.
Before the Court is Defendants Shaun Hildreth and Terrance Moore’s (“Defendants”)
Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Criminal Disposition. ECF No. 37. On February 25, 2025,
Plaintiff filed a Response. ECF No. 39.1 After consideration, the Court recommends Defendants’
motion be granted and Plaintiff’s § 1983 lawsuit be administratively stayed.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brought the instant lawsuit pursuant to § 1983 against Defendants on May 24,
2023, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. ECF No. 1. His allegations
stem from his arrest on May 26, 2022, where Plaintiff was initially charged with terroristic
1 The same day Plaintiff filed his Response, he also filed a Motion to Supplement Amended Complaint. ECF No. 40.
Then on March 25, 2025, he filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which did not comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and appears to have no merit. To date, Defendants have not responded to the Motion for Summary
Judgment.
Case 1:23-cv-01048-SOH Document 42 Filed 03/31/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
threatening, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by certain persons. ECF No. 1; see
State of Arkansas v. Adam Lee Maskell, Case No. 06CR-22-25-1, Bradley County Circuit Court.2
On July 17, 2023, this Court stayed and administratively terminated this case pursuant to Younger
v. Harris because of Plaintiff’s ongoing state court criminal case. ECF No. 7.
On September 24, 2024, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by certain
persons. State of Arkansas v. Adam Lee Maskell, Bradley County Circuit Court.3 On October 4,
2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reopen this case stating in part:
…On 	July 	17, 	2023 	the 	Honorable 	Judge 	Susan 	O’Hickey 	Stayed 	and
Administratively Terminated Plaintiff Adam Maskell’s 1983 lawsuit. In Judge
O’Hickey’s Order she specifically stated, ‘Plaintiff is hereby advised that he may
file a motion to reopen this action once the now-ongoing state court proceeding has
concluded.’
…Maskell on July 29 th , 2024 was sentence by Judge Quincey Ross to 5 years in
State prison for the Certain Persons offense. Therefore the State court matter has
officially been concluded and is ready for the Plaintiff’s lawsuit to be taken to trial
in the United States District Court.
…Hildreth purposely destroyed exculpatory evidence in violation of the 14th
Amendment of the United States Constitution namely a police server, holding cell
footage and body camera footage. Also the Defendant unwittingly admitted to
unlawfully searching and seizing the Plaintiff’s cellphone for thing unrelated to the
Plaintiff’s arrest, without a warrant from a judge. Plaintiff Adam Maskell plans to
soon file a supplemental complaint which will prove that the Plaintiff destroyed
this evidence to cover up an illegal drug operation he is running with Officer
Terrance Moore and Sgt. Thomas Miller of the Warren Police Department…4
ECF No. 16. Based on Plaintiff’s representation to the Court that his criminal case was concluded,
the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to reopen this lawsuit. ECF No. 19. On October 28, 2024, in
response to this Court’s order (ECF No. 21), Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against
Defendants alleging they unlawfully searched his cell phone, and engaged in witness and evidence
2 https://caseinfonew.arcourts.gov/opad/case/06CR-22-25 (last accessed March 27, 2025)
3 https://caseinfonew.arcourts.gov/opad/case/06CR-22-25 (last accessed March 27, 2025)
4 The Court presumes Plaintiff intended to refer to “Defendant” instead of “Plaintiff”.
Case 1:23-cv-01048-SOH Document 42 Filed 03/31/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
tampering and destruction of exculpatory evidence during the investigation and arrest. He is
seeking damages and injunctive relief. ECF No. 22, 30.
Since the reopening of the instant lawsuit, Plaintiff has appealed his criminal case. The
Notice of Appeal states in part:
COMES the Defendant, by and through his appellate counsel, Vicki Lucas, and
hereby gives Notice that he does herewith appeal to the Arkansas Court of Appeals
the Sentencing Order and entered by this Court on or about September 24, 2024,
and filed with the Circuit Clerk on or about September 24, 2024 wherein he was
sentenced to the Arkansas Department of Correction for a term of 60 months after
being found guilty in the Bradley County Circuit Court of Possession of Firearm
by a Certain Persons – Prior crime violet [sic] or present.
Defendant 	appeals 	all 	criminal 	convictions/offenses 	listed 	in 	the 	aforesaid
Sentencing Order.
State of Arkansas v. Adam Lee Maskell, Case No. 06CR-22-25-1, Bradley County Circuit Court,
Notice of Appeal and Designation of Record. Then on December 16, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel filed
a Motion for Extension of Time to File the Record. Judge Quincey Ross granted Plaintiff’s Motion
for Time and Plaintiff has until April 24, 2024, in which to file the Record in the criminal appeal.5
II. 	DISCUSSION
Defendants argue Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims arising from his arrest on May 25, 2022, are
barred under the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). ECF No. 37. In
response Plaintiff argues in part:
…Plaintiffs State Court Appeal has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the
Plaintiff can sue for monetary damages in Federal Court for Constitutional
Violations committed by Defendant Hildreth and Moore. Plaintiff Adam Maskell
is appealing the issue of recusal because he reported Judge Ross and his ex wife
Marina for a crime and sued Judge Ross and he refused to recuse from the Plaintiffs
State Court case. See Pro Se Notice of Appeal dated 10-7-27 detailing all the issues
the Plaintiff will be appealing. Plaintiff Adam Maskell is also appealing his denial
of his right to be heard at Sentencing and on the Motion to With drawl his plea…
the Plaintiff is also appealing entering into a plea agreement while under the
5 https://caseinfonew.arcourts.gov/opad/case/06CR-22-25 (accessed March 27, 2025)
Case 1:23-cv-01048-SOH Document 42 Filed 03/31/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
influence of Gabepentin and Trazodone as no plea should ever be accepted while a
Criminal Defendant is under the influence…
ECF No. 39.
Pursuant to Younger, federal courts are required to abstain from hearing cases when “(1)
there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding which (2) implicates important state interests, and
when (3) that proceeding affords an adequate opportunity to raise the federal questions presented.”
Norwood v. Dickey, 409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Fuller v. Ulland, 76 F.3d 957, 959
(8th Cir. 1996)). Ongoing state criminal proceedings implicate the important state interest of
enforcing state criminal law, and constitutional claims relating to that proceeding should be raised
there. Meador v. Paulson, 385 F. App’x 613 (8th Cir. 2010); see also Gillette v. N. Dakota Disc.
Bd. Counsel, 610 F.3d 1045, 1046 (8th Cir. 2010). “If all three questions are answered
affirmatively, a federal court should abstain unless it detects ‘bad faith, harassment, or some
extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate’”. Night Clubs, Inc. v. City
of Ft. Smith, Ark., 163 F.3d 475, 479 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v.
Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 435 (1982)).
When only equitable relief is sought, Younger “contemplates the outright dismissal of the
federal suit, and the presentation of all claims, both state and federal to the state courts.” Gibson
v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 577 (1973) (a § 1983 case involving only injunctive relief, and not
damages). In cases where damages are sought, the Eighth Circuit has noted that the Supreme
Court instructs that traditional abstention principles generally require a stay as the appropriate
mode of abstention rather than a dismissal. Night Clubs, Inc., 163 F. 3d at 481. In Quackenbush
v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996), the Court said:
In those cases in which we have applied traditional abstention principles to damages
actions, we have only permitted a federal court to withhold action until the state
proceedings have concluded, that is, we have permitted federal courts applying
Case 1:23-cv-01048-SOH Document 42 Filed 03/31/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
abstention principles in damages actions to enter a stay, but we have not permitted
them to dismiss the action altogether.
Id. at 730.
Here, Plaintiff has an ongoing state criminal case where he is appealing his guilty plea on
the possession of a firearm by certain persons. The state criminal proceedings implicate the
important state interest of enforcing state criminal law, and constitutional claims relating to that
proceeding should be raised there. It is therefore appropriate to again stay Plaintiff’s claims for
injunctive relief and for damages.
III. 	CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
For these reasons, it is recommended the Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending
Criminal Disposition (ECF No. 37) be GRANTED and that this case be STAYED AND
ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED during the pendency of Plaintiff’s criminal case which
includes his appeal and request for post-conviction relief. Plaintiff should be admonished not to
seek to reopen this civil matter until such time as his State criminal proceeding is complete in all
respects.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 31st day of March 2025.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-01048-SOH Document 42 Filed 03/31/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>