Nitz v. City of Moline Police Department et al
| Steven Nitz, Jr |
| City of Moline Police Department, Detective Steven Murphy and Detective Adam Lorenz |
| 4:2026cv04069 |
| March 13, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Sara Darrow |
| Ronald L Hanna |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 30, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 23 RESPONSE to Motion re #21 MOTION to Stay Civil Proceedings filed by Plaintiff Steven Nitz, Jr. (KLC) |
Filing 22
TEXT ORDER: Defendants #21 move to stay this case pending resolution of Plaintiff's state-court criminal proceedings. Plaintiff has not responded to that request, so the Court presumes that it is unopposed. See Civil LR 7.1(B)(2). Plaintiff #1 filed this Section 1983 action in March 2026, alleging that Officers Murphy and Lorenzo of the Moline Police Department conducted an unlawful search and seizure. According to Defendants, Plaintiff has since been charged with two felony offenses: (1) possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and (2) unlawful possession of a firearm. Defendants contend that those charges arose from the search that Plaintiff challenges here. Plaintiff's prosecution is currently pending in the Rock Island County Circuit Court and remains in the pre-trial stage. It is settled that "federal courts should abstain from enjoining ongoing state criminal proceedings." Simpson v. Rowan, 73 F.3d 134, 137 (7th Cir. 1995) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53 (1971)). That policy of abstention finds its rationale in judicial federalism and federal courts' hesitation to disrupt state proceedings. See id. And although Younger traditionally applied to suits that seek injunctive relief, the Seventh Circuit has since recognized that Younger's underlying rationale would "be frustrated as much by a damages award as it would by either an injunction or a declaratory judgment." Id. A stay is therefore appropriate when a federal damages action would interfere with state criminal proceedings. See id. In considering a stay under these circumstances, courts consider factors such as (1) "whether the civil and criminal matters involve the same subject"; (2) "the posture of the criminal proceeding"; and (3) "potential prejudice the plaintiff may suffer from a delay." Chagolla v. City of Chicago, 529 F. Supp. 2d 941, 945 (N.D. Ill. 2008). Ultimately, the decision whether to stay is a discretionary one. See Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court concludes that a stay of this case is appropriate. The search and seizure that Plaintiff challenges here led directly to the state-court criminal proceedings. His claims thus "raise[] constitutional issues that are potentially subject to adjudication in" Rock Island County, making "the potential for federal-state friction is obvious." Simpson, 73 F.3d at 138. Nor would a stay prejudice Plaintiff. Because a stay merely halts proceedings--rather than dismisses them entirely--Plaintiff is free to pursue his claims in this Court following his state-court proceedings. Accordingly, Defendants' #21 motion is GRANTED. This case is STAYED. Defendants are ORDERED to file a status report no later than October 19, 2026, or within two weeks of the termination of Plaintiff's criminal prosecution, whichever is earlier. Entered by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Hanna on July 21, 2026. (KLC)
|
| Filing 21 MOTION to Stay Civil Proceedings by Defendants City of Moline Police Department, Adam Lorenz, Steven Murphy. Responses due by 7/16/2026 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Wynes, Madison) |
| Filing 20 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Steven Nitz, Jr. City of Moline Police Department served on 6/10/2026, answer due 7/1/2026; Adam Lorenz served on 6/10/2026, answer due 7/1/2026; Steven Murphy served on 6/10/2026, answer due 7/1/2026. (KLC) |
| Filing 19 Summons Issued as to All Defendants. Originals returned to Plaintiff over the counter at Rock Island Clerk's Office. (KLC) |
|
Filing 18
ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on May 20, 2026. Plaintiff Steven Nitz, Jr.'s #10 motion to request counsel and #11 application to proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (AV)
|
|
Filing 17
TEXT ORDER: Defendants have #14 moved to quash service of process, explaining that Plaintiff served three summonses at the front desk of the Moline Police Department. They argue that this method of service was defective because Plaintiff failed to include a copy of his Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1). They also argue that serving Officer Julie Ott--who was working at the front desk of the police department when Plaintiff served the summonses there--was ineffective because Officer Ott is not a person "authorized to accept service" on either Defendant Murphy or Defendant Lorenz's behalf. Finally, Defendants argue that serving Officer Ott was not an effective way of serving the City of Moline under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2), which instead requires Plaintiff to serve the City of Moline either (1) via its chief executive officer; or (2) in a manner prescribed by Illinois law. In response, Plaintiff acknowledges that he failed to attach a copy of the complaint, as Rule 4(c)(1) requires. He argues, however, that dismissal would be too severe a penalty. Yet Defendants are not seeking that relief; their motion to quash simply asks the Court to order Plaintiff "to serve Defendants in compliance with Rule 4." (Doc. 14 at 7.) The Court also notes that Plaintiffs observation that Defendants have actual notice of this lawsuit is irrelevant; service under Rule 4 is "jurisdictionally rooted." See Ransom v. Brennan, 437 F.2d 513, 51617 (5th Cir. 1971). Accordingly, Defendants' #14 Motion to Quash is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve all three Defendants in accordance with Rule 4. Plaintiff's service deadline under Rule 4(m) remains June 11, 2026. Should Plaintiff wish to seek an extension of that June 11 deadline, he must make that request via proper motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Civil LR 6.1. Entered by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Hanna on May 14, 2026. (NL)
|
| Filing 16 RESPONSE to Motion re #14 MOTION to Quash Defendants' Motion to Quash Service of Process Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7.1 filed by Plaintiff Steven Nitz, Jr. (KLC) |
| Filing 15 Exhibit re #14 MOTION to Quash Defendants' Motion to Quash Service of Process Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7.1 Corrected Declaration and Exhibits by City of Moline Police Department, Adam Lorenz, Steven Murphy. (Wynes, Madison) |
| Filing 14 MOTION to Quash Defendants' Motion to Quash Service of Process Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7.1 by Defendants City of Moline Police Department, Adam Lorenz, Steven Murphy. Responses due by 5/15/2026 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibits A-C)(Wynes, Madison) |
|
Filing 13
TEXT ORDER: Defendants' #12 Second Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint is GRANTED. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), courts may, for good cause, extend time when a request is made before the original deadline expires. Defendants' explain that they attempted to contact Plaintiff in accordance with Civil Local Rule 6.1, but they did not receive a response. In any case, the Court finds good cause for the modest extension. Accordingly, Defendants must file an answer or other responsive motion to Plaintiff's complaint on or by May 1, 2026. Entered by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Hanna on April 29, 2026. (NL)
|
| Filing 12 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint by Defendants City of Moline Police Department, Adam Lorenz, Steven Murphy. Responses due by 5/8/2026 (Wynes, Madison) |
| Filing 11 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Steven Nitz, Jr. Responses due by 4/28/2026. (KLC) |
| Filing 10 MOTION to Request Counsel by Plaintiff Steven Nitz, Jr. Responses due by 4/28/2026. (KLC) |
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Pursuant to the 4/8/2026 Text Order, Answer Deadline for April 24, 2026, set as to all defendants. (LN) |
|
Filing 9
TEXT ORDER: Defendants' #8 Motion for Extension of Time to respond to Plaintiff's #1 Complaint GRANTED. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), the Court may, for good cause, extend time when a request is made before the original deadline expires. Defendants explain that they need more time to investigate Plaintiff's allegations and prepare an answer. That constitutes good cause. The Court also notes, however, that Civil Local Rule 6.1 requires parties seeking an extension of time to state whether the motion is opposed. Defendants' #8 motion does not indicate whether it is opposed, nor does it indicate whether Defendants' made any effort to contact Plaintiff to secure his consent. In any case, Defendants must file an answer or other responsive motion on or by April 24, 2026. Entered by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Hanna on April 8, 2026. (NL)
|
| Filing 8 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by Defendants City of Moline Police Department, Adam Lorenz, Steven Murphy. Responses due by 4/21/2026 (Wynes, Madison) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Madison Wynes on behalf of All Defendants (Wynes, Madison) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Michael J Victor on behalf of City of Moline Police Department, Adam Lorenz, Steven Murphy (Victor, Michael) |
|
Filing 5
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on March 27, 2026. As Plaintiff filed a new #4 motion to request counsel, the #3 motion to request counsel is DENIED. The Court can only request counsel to represent a person "unable to afford counsel." 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1). Indigency is a mandatory prerequisite for a civil litigant to request counsel. See, e.g., Eagan v. Dempsey, 987 F.3d 667, 682 (7th Cir. 2021); see also Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007) (specifying that 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1) applies to "indigent" civil plaintiffs). Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is indigent and unable to afford counsel, so his #4 motion is also DENIED. If Plaintiff files a new motion for counsel, he should also file the long form application to proceed without prepayment of fees so that the Court can determine if he is indigent. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of AO239 to Plaintiff. Any new motion for counsel should address two questions: 1) whether Plaintiff has made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel; and 2) whether, given the difficulty of the case, Plaintiff is competent to litigate it himself. Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654. Litigating a case includes "evidence gathering, preparing and responding to motions and other court filings, and trial." Id. at 655. In determining whether the difficulty of the case exceeds the plaintiff's capacity to litigate it, the court considers "the plaintiff's literacy, communication skills, educational level, and litigation experience" as well as the plaintiff's "intellectual capacity and psychological history." Id. (BMG)
|
| Filing 4 MOTION to Request Counsel by Plaintiff Steven Nitz, Jr. Responses due by 4/10/2026. (KLC) |
| Filing 3 MOTION to Request Counsel by Plaintiff Steven Nitz, Jr. Responses due by 3/27/2026. (KLC) |
| Filing 2 Summons Issued as to All Defendants. Originals provided to Plaintiff over the counter in Rock Island. (KLC) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 405.), filed by Steven Nitz, Jr. (Attachments: #1 Summons, #2 FF Receipt)(KLC) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
