Jones v. Madhwani et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
G ENERIO T RAVIS J ONES J R .,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 4:25-cv-648-P
O FFICER FNA M ADHWANI , ET AL .,
Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions,
and a Recommendation in this case. ECF No. 35. Plaintiff filed an
Objection 	on 	March 	95 	2026, 	and 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s
Recommendation 	is 	ripe 	for 	review. 	Accordingly, 	the 	undersigned
District Judge conducted a de novo review. The undersigned District
Judge believes that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate
Judge 	are 	correct, 	and 	they 	are 	accepted 	as 	the 	Findings 	and
Conclusions of the Court.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Stay (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED
and 	the 	above-styled 	and 	numbered 	cause 	is 	STAYED 	pending
resolution of Plaintiff’s above-described criminal charges. It is further
ORDERED that this case be ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED and
that Plaintiff, if he intends to pursue these claims, be ORDERED to file
a motion to lift the stay within thirty (30) days of the date the criminal
proceedings against him conclude. The Court further ORDERS that
Defendants not be required to answer Plaintiff’s claims against them
during the stay nor that Plaintiff be allowed to seek a default judgment
or conduct discovery during the stay. The Court further ORDERS that
the Clerk of the Court be DIRECTED not to accept any motions or other
documents for filing in this case from Plaintiff other than: (1) a motion
Case 4:25-cv-00648-P Document 27 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

2
to lift the stay and reopen the case; (2) a motion to dismiss the lawsuit
voluntarily; or (3) a notice of change of address.
Further, 	Plaintiff’s 	objections 	are 	OVERRULLED. 	Plaintiff’s
argument that a stay would “delay[] adjudication of constitutional
claims and increase[] the risk of lost evidence and faded memories” (ECF
No. 26 at 2 ) is unavailing in light of case law. Indeed, “[w]hen a plaintiff
files suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on claims that are ‘related to
rulings that will likely be made in a pending . . . criminal trial[ ], it is
within the power of the district court, and in accord with common
practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal case . . . is ended.’”
Joiner v. Lewis, No. 23-7144, 2024 WL 3452902, at *1 (E.D. La. July 17,
2024) (quoting Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007)).
SO ORDERED on this 24th day of March 2026.
REGINALEA KEMP ,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 4:23-cv-00841-P
REGIONS BANK ET AL .,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 18. Having considered the Motion
and applicable docket entries, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
SO ORDERED on this 18th day of September 2023.
______________________________________________
Mark T. Pittman
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-00648-P Document 27 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>