Heather Newport v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 9, 2025
• Docket: 1:23-cv-01752
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 HEATHER NEWPORT, Case No. 1:23-cv-01752-SAB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY 12 AND STAYING THIS MATTER v. 13 (ECF No. 42) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 14 Defendants. 15 16 On October 1, 2025, Defendant United States of America filed a motion for a 17 continuance of all dates and to set a status conference in light of the lapse of appropriations. 18 (ECF No. 42.) In the motion, Defendant noted that the federal government shutdown bars 19 Department of Justice attorneys from working on civil matters, even on a voluntary basis, except 20 in limited circumstances that are not relevant here. Because of this, and because it remains 21 unknown when funds will be restored, Defendant moved for a continuance of all dates in this 22 matter and to set a status conference. The Court construed the motion as a motion to stay and 23 directed Plaintiff to file a response to the motion. (ECF No. 43.) On October 8, 2025, Plaintiff 24 filed a non-opposition with the caveat that she did not agree to an automatic continuance of the 25 trial date once the stay is lifted because “it is currently unknown as to the length of time funding 26 will be unavailable and whether it will have any appreciable impact on the ability of the parties 27 to prepare for trial. Any such finding[s] are premature at this juncture.” (ECF No. 44.) A district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 1 | control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997), citing Landis v. North 2 | America Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). A stay is discretionary and the “party requesting a stay 3 | bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken 4 | v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009). “Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” 5 | Dependable Highway Exp.., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2007). 6 | Instead, district courts should “balance the length of any stay against the strength of the 7 | justification given for it.” Young v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000) (discussing that 8 | if a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it). 9 Upon review of the motion, the Court agrees that a stay is warranted in this matter 10 | because the government essentially cannot participate in the litigation of the case until funding is 11 | restored. The Court also agrees with Plaintiff that it would be premature to discuss altering the 12 | trial date, given that the stay could possibly be for a short duration. Furthermore, the parties 13 | have both proposed, though perhaps worded differently, that Defendant should be required to file 14 | a notice when funding is restored and that the Court should set a status conference soon 15 | thereafter. On this, the Court agrees. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to stay (ECF No. 42) 17 GRANTED. This matter is STAYED until Congress has restored appropriations to the 18 | Department of Justice or Congress enacts a continuing resolution. Within three (3) days of the 19 | restoration of appropriations or enactment of a continuing resolution, Defendant shall file a 20 | notice thereof with the Court. At that time, the Court will set a status conference to discuss 21 | whether modification to the scheduling order will be necessary. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. F- 2 Se 24 | Dated: _ October 9, 2025 _ OO STANLEY A. BOONE 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28