Opinion
2:24-cv-00755-JLR
08-12-2024
S.H.T., Plaintiff, v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., Defendants.
TESSA M. GORMAN United States Attorney MICHELLE R. LAMBERT, NYS #4666657 Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Western District of Washington Attorneys for Defendants I certify that this memorandum contains 395 words, in compliance with the Local Civil Rules. O'SULLIVAN LAW OFFICE JANE MARIE O'SULLIVAN, WSBA#34486 Attorney for Plaintiff
Noted for Consideration: August 8, 2024
TESSA M. GORMAN United States Attorney MICHELLE R. LAMBERT, NYS #4666657 Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Western District of Washington Attorneys for Defendants I certify that this memorandum contains 395 words, in compliance with the Local Civil Rules.
O'SULLIVAN LAW OFFICE JANE MARIE O'SULLIVAN, WSBA#34486 Attorney for Plaintiff
STIPULATED MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
James L. Robart District Judge
Plaintiff and Defendants, by and through their counsel of record, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and Local Rules 7(d)(1), 10(g) and 16, hereby jointly stipulate and move to stay these proceedings until January 15, 2025. Plaintiff brought this litigation pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act and Mandamus Act seeking, inter alia, to compel U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to schedule an interview and adjudicate his asylum application. Defendants' response to the Complaint is currently due on September 4, 2024. The parties are currently working towards a resolution to this litigation. For good cause, the parties request that the Court hold the case in abeyance until January 15, 2025.
Courts have “broad discretion” to stay proceedings. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 1.
With additional time, this case may be resolved without the need of further judicial intervention. USCIS has scheduled Plaintiff's asylum interview for September 17, 2024. USCIS agrees to diligently work towards completing the adjudication within 120 days of the interview, absent unforeseen or exceptional circumstances that would require additional time for adjudication. If the adjudication is not completed within that time, USCIS will provide a status report to the Court. Plaintiff will submit all supplemental documents and evidence, if any, to USCIS seven to ten days prior to the interview date. Plaintiff recognizes that failure to submit documents prior to the interview may require the interview to be rescheduled and the adjudication delayed. If needed, Plaintiff will bring an interpreter to the interview, otherwise the interview will need to be rescheduled and the adjudication delayed. Once the application is adjudicated, Plaintiff will dismiss the case with each party to bear their own litigation costs and attorneys' fees. Accordingly, the parties request this abeyance to allow USCIS to conduct Plaintiff's asylum interview and then process his asylum application.
As additional time is necessary for this to occur, the parties request that the Court hold the case in abeyance until January 15, 2025. The parties will submit a status update on or before January 15, 2025.
I certify that this memorandum contains 395 words, in compliance with the Local Civil Rules.
ORDER
The case is held in abeyance until January 15, 2025. The parties shall submit a status update on or before January 15, 2025. It is so ORDERED.