SCOTT v. MIKELONIS et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM SCOTT, )
)
Plaintiff, ) 2:25-cv-00031-CB-KT
)
v. ) Chief Judge Cathy Bissoon
) Magistrate Judge Kezia O. L. Taylor
JAISON MIKELONIS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Magistrate Kezia O. L.
Taylor for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§
636(b)(l)(A) and (B), and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 72.
The present filing addresses two matters: the Magistrate Judge’s Report &
Recommendation dated October 2, 2025 (Doc. 59, “the R&R”); and her show cause Order
dated October 22, 2025 (Doc. 61, “the SCO”).
The R&R recommends that this case be stayed pending disposition of the criminal
proceedings against Plaintiff in U.S. v. Scott, 2:23-cr-00134-JFC (W.D. Pa.), and that
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 31 & 33) be denied as moot. Service of the R&R was
made on the parties, and no objections have been filed.
After a review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the R&R,
it hereby is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to stay (Doc. 58) is GRANTED, to the extent
that this case is STAYED pending resolution of the criminal charges in 2:23-cr-00134-JFC.
Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED, to the extent that he envisions filing a motion to suppress in the
above-captioned case. See Doc. 58 at ¶ 3 (referencing a motion to suppress, but lacking clarity
Case 2:25-cv-00031-CB-KT Document 70 Filed 12/20/25 Page 1 of 3

2
as to whether the motion will be filed here or in 2:23-cr-00134-JFC). The filing of a motion for
suppression in this case would be improper, and, if one is filed, it will be stricken.
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 31 & 33) are DENIED AS MOOT, although the
denial is without prejudice to re-filing should this case properly be reinstated. Finally, the R&R
(Doc. 59) is adopted as the Opinion of the District Court.
As for the SCO, Plaintiff maintains that he did not receive a copy of it and therefore
cannot “proffer any allegations in [his] defense.” Doc. 67 at ¶ 6; see also Doc. 69. Along with a
copy of the present Order, Court staff also will enclose a copy of the SCO (Doc. 61), as well as a
copy of the County Police Defendants’ response (Doc. 65) to the SCO (Plaintiff acknowledges
that he received a copy of the City Defendants’ response, at Doc. 64).
Plaintiff shall file a written response to the substance of the SCO, and Defendants’
responses, by January 12, 2026. This deadline already has been extended to account for any
delays resulting from the mail system, and the Court does not anticipate granting further
extension(s).
Once Plaintiff has responded on the merits, and to avoid any delay resulting from the
R&R-process, the District Court will adjudicate the subject-matter of the SCO by way of a direct
ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 20, 2025 s/Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
Chief United States District Judge
Enclosures (Docs. 61 & 65)
Case 2:25-cv-00031-CB-KT Document 70 Filed 12/20/25 Page 2 of 3

3
cc (via First-Class U.S. Mail, control-sticker affixed):
William Scott
QP8315
SCI Houtzdale
P.O. Box 1000
209 Institution Drive
Houtzdale, PA 16698-1000
cc (via ECF email notification):
All Counsel of Record
Case 2:25-cv-00031-CB-KT Document 70 Filed 12/20/25 Page 3 of 3