Eltohamy v. United States Department of Homeland Security

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedMay 7, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-00745
StatusUnknown

This text of Eltohamy v. United States Department of Homeland Security (Eltohamy v. United States Department of Homeland Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eltohamy v. United States Department of Homeland Security, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Opinion

1 Chief Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 MOHAMED ELTOHAMY, Case No. 2:25-cv-00745-TLF 10 Plaintiff, STIPULATED MOTION TO HOLD 11 v. CASE IN ABEYANCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 12 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.,1 Noted for Consideration: 13 April 24, 2025 Defendants. 14 15 For good cause, Plaintiff and Defendants, by and through their counsel of record, 16 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and Local Rules 7(d)(1), 10(g) and 16, hereby 17 jointly stipulate and move to stay these proceedings until October 23, 2025. Plaintiff brought 18 this litigation pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act and Mandamus Act seeking, inter 19 alia, to compel the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) adjudicate Plaintiff’s 20 Form I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal. Defendants’ response to the 21 22 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Defendants substitute Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Secretary Kristi Noem for former Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Senior Official Performing the Duties of 23 the Director Kika Scott for Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Director of the San Francisco Asylum Field Office Ron Rosenberg for Emilia Bardini, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Kash Patel for Christopher A Wray, U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi for Merrick Garland and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Edward R. 24 Martin, Jr for Matthew M. Graves. 1 Complaint is currently due on May 14, 2025. The parties are currently working towards a 2 resolution to this litigation. 3 Courts have “broad discretion” to stay proceedings. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 4 (1997). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to

5 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 6 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Fed. R. Civ. 7 P. 1. 8 With additional time, this case may be resolved without the need of further judicial 9 intervention. USCIS has scheduled Plaintiff’s asylum interview for June 25, 2025. USCIS 10 agrees to diligently work towards completing the adjudication within 120 days of the interview, 11 absent unforeseen or exceptional circumstances that would require additional time for 12 adjudication. If the adjudication is not completed within that time, USCIS will provide a status 13 report to the Court. Plaintiff will submit all supplemental documents and evidence, if any, to

14 USCIS seven to ten days prior to the interview date. Plaintiff recognizes that failure to submit 15 documents prior to the interview may require the interview to be rescheduled and the 16 adjudication delayed. If needed, Plaintiff will bring an interpreter to the interview, otherwise the 17 interview will need to be rescheduled and the adjudication delayed. Once the application is 18 adjudicated, Plaintiff will dismiss the case with each party to bear their own litigation costs and 19 attorneys’ fees. Accordingly, the parties request this abeyance to allow USCIS to conduct 20 Plaintiff’s asylum interview and then process his asylum application. 21 As additional time is necessary for this to occur, the parties request that the Court hold 22 the case in abeyance until October 23, 2025. The parties will submit a status report on or before 23 October 23, 2025.

24 // 1 DATED this 24th day of April, 2025. 2 Respectfully submitted, 3 TEAL LUTHY MILLER ELSHARNOBY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Acting United States Attorney 4 s/ Michelle R. Lambert s/ Daniel J. Porcerelli 5 MICHELLE R. LAMBERT, NYS #4666657 DANIEL J. PORCERELLI, D.C. No. 90021079 Assistant United States Attorney Attorney & Counselor at Law 6 United States Attorney’s Office Elsharnoby & Associates, P.C. Western District of Washington 12824 Ford Road, Suite 2 7 1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 700 Dearborn, MI 48126 Tacoma, Washington 98402 Phone: (313) 581-9666 8 Phone: (253) 428-3800 Email: DPorcerelli@elsharnoby.com Fax: (253) 428-3826 9 Email: michelle.lambert@usdoj.gov 10 Attorneys for Defendants 11 I certify that this memorandum contains 383 words, in compliance with the Local Civil Rules. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 The case, including all interim deadlines, is held in abeyance until October 23, 2025. 3 The parties shall submit a status report on or before October 23, 2025. It is so ORDERED. 4

5 DATED this 7th day of May, 2025. 6 A 7 JAMES L. ROBART 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Landis v. North American Co.
299 U.S. 248 (Supreme Court, 1936)
Clinton v. Jones
520 U.S. 681 (Supreme Court, 1997)
People v. Platt
7 P. 1 (California Supreme Court, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Eltohamy v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eltohamy-v-united-states-department-of-homeland-security-wawd-2025.