Defendants’ Unopposed Motion To Stay
Summary
Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Stay in Feds for Medical Freedom, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al., Civil Action 3:21-cv-00356, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division, filed February 17, 2022 as Document 44. The defendants ask the court to stay the litigation pending final resolution of their appeal of the court's nationwide preliminary injunction of Executive Order 14043, which the Fifth Circuit set for argument on March 8, 2022 in Case No. 22-40043. The motion argues that the appeal overlaps with the issues in the case, including CSRA preclusion, and that a stay would not prejudice the plaintiffs while the injunction remains in place. In the alternative, it asks the court to extend all deadlines by 30 days and reset the initial conference. A certificate of conference states that plaintiffs' counsel consented.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
Case 3:21-cv-00356 Document 44 Filed on 02/17/22 in TXSD Page 1 of 6
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
FEDS FOR MEDICAL FREEDOM, et
al.,
Civil Action 3:21-cv-00356
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official
capacity, et al.,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY
Defendants, through undersigned counsel, hereby request that the Court stay this
litigation. As the Court is aware, United States has filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s
order granting a nationwide preliminary inunction of Executive Order 14043, and the Fifth
Circuit has ordered expedited briefing, with oral argument scheduled for March 8, 2022.
The issues on appeal overlap with the issues to be resolved by the Court in this case.
Accordingly, in the interest of conserving judicial resources, Defendants move to stay
further litigation, pending final resolution of the preliminary injunction appeal. In further
support of this motion, Defendants would show the Court the following:
1. This action was filed on December 21, 2021, and Plaintiffs requested a
preliminary injunction the following day. See Doc. No. 1 and 3. Defendants’ response to
the complaint is due February 21, 2022; the parties’ joint discovery plan is due February
Case 3:21-cv-00356 Document 44 Filed on 02/17/22 in TXSD Page 2 of 6
25, 2022; initial disclosures are due March 7, 2022; and an initial conference with the
Magistrate Judge is scheduled for March 9, 2022. Doc. No. 6.
2. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs’ request for
preliminary injunction on January 21, 2022, and issued a nationwide injunction enjoining
enforcement of Executive Order 14043. Doc. No. 36. The Court ordered that “[a]ll the
defendants, except the President, are thus enjoined from implementing or enforcing
Executive Order 14043 until this case is resolved on the merits.” Id.
3. The Defendants filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s preliminary injunction
order. Doc. No. 37. Defendants also moved both this Court and the Fifth Circuit for a stay
of the preliminary injunction pending appeal. Doc. No. 40; Doc. No. 00516192163, Case
No. 22-40043 (5th Cir. Jan. 28, 2022). This Court denied Defendants’ motion to stay the
preliminary injunction pending appeal on February 11, 2022.
4. On February 9, 2022, the Fifth Circuit ordered that the Defendants’ stay
motion be carried with the case, and set an expedited briefing schedule pursuant to which
the Defendants’ appeal of the preliminary injunction will be fully briefed by February 18,
2022. See Doc. No. 00516198602, Case No. 22-40043 (5th Cir. Feb. 10, 2022). The Fifth
Circuit calendared the case for argument on March 8, 2022.
5. This Court has broad discretion to stay this action. “A district court has
inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time
and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Heck v. Triche, 775 F.3d 265, 276 (5th
Cir. 2014) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also, e.g., Clinton v. Jones, 520
Case 3:21-cv-00356 Document 44 Filed on 02/17/22 in TXSD Page 3 of 6
U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (recognizing district court’s “broad discretion to stay proceedings”).
In determining whether to stay a case, the court must consider what is “efficient for its own
docket” as well as “the fairest course for the parties.” Greco v. Natl. Football League, 116 F.
Supp. 3d 744, 761 (N.D. Tex. 2015).
6. Here, conservation of the Court’s and the parties’ resources weighs in favor
of a stay. A stay will promote efficiency because the resolution of the Defendants’ appeal is
likely to provide substantial, if not dispositive, guidance with respect to central issues
presented in this case. Awaiting final resolution of the appeal would conserve the resources
of the parties and the Court and eliminate the need to address legal issues—including
threshold jurisdictional defenses such as CSRA preclusion—that the Fifth Circuit is
currently considering on appeal. See Coker v. Select Energy Servs., LLC, 161 F. Supp. 3d
492, 495 (S.D. Tex. 2015) (stay of proceedings pending appeal appropriate where the issues
presented on appeal “would simplify and resolve threshold issues relating to . . .
jurisdiction”).
7. Moreover, given the expedited nature of the Fifth Circuit proceedings, the
requested stay would not prejudice the plaintiffs. So long as the injunction remains in place,
they face no threat of harm from the executive order. See, e.g., Minute Order of Dec. 10,
2021, Texas v. Biden, No. 3:21-cv-309-JVB (S.D. Tex.) (staying challenge to Executive
Order 14042 in light of another district court’s nationwide injunction).
8. If the Court determines that this matter should not be stayed at this time,
Defendants request in the alternative that the Court extend all deadlines by 30 days and
Case 3:21-cv-00356 Document 44 Filed on 02/17/22 in TXSD Page 4 of 6
reset the initial conference currently set for March 9, 2022. Such an extension would serve
the interests discussed above because it would allow additional time for proceedings on the
Defendants’ appeal of the preliminary injunction to play out.
Dated February 17, 2022 BRIT FEATHERSTON
United States Attorney, Eastern District of Texas
/s/ James G. Gillingham
JAMES G. GILLINGHAM
Assistant United States Attorney
Eastern District of Texas
Acting Under Authority Conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 515
Attorney in Charge
Texas Bar #24065295
110 N. College Street; Suite 700
Tyler, Texas 75702
Telephone: (903) 510-9346
Facsimile: (903) 590-1436
James.Gillingham@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants
Case 3:21-cv-00356 Document 44 Filed on 02/17/22 in TXSD Page 5 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I certify that on February 17, 2022, counsel for Plaintiffs confirmed their consent to
the relief requested in this motion.
/s/ James G. Gillingham
JAMES G. GILLINGHAM
Case 3:21-cv-00356 Document 44 Filed on 02/17/22 in TXSD Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on February 17, 2022, a true and accurate copy of the foregoing
document was filed electronically (via CM/ECF) and served on all counsel of record.
/s/ James G. Gillingham
JAMES G. GILLINGHAMFile and source
- File
- 3-21-cv-00356_RECAP_gov.uscourts.txsd.1855108.44.0.pdf
- Size
- 116,704 bytes
- SHA-256
- da2b92a1a7c6b03b813eb2aeea6d99084aaef7091569d018d6b5038a94cd4bc1
- Original
- No public link identified.