Heldreth v. Garland

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 DAVID HELDRETH, CASE NO. C24-1817-KKE 8

Plaintiff(s), ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR STAY

10 MERRICK B. GARLAND, et al.,

11 Defendant(s).

12 After the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 15), 13 Defendants filed a notice of improper service, indicating that Plaintiff had not yet effected proper 14 service of process on the United States Attorney’s Office, as required by Federal Rule of Civil 15 Procedure 4(i). Dkt. No. 16. Although Plaintiff seems to disagree that service on the United States 16 Attorney’s Office is required, he has apparently recently mailed filings for that purpose. Dkt. No. 17 19 at 2. 18 Plaintiff subsequently requested a stay of these proceedings because the underlying 19 proceedings at issue in the Drug Enforcement Administration have been stayed, and the 20 Defendants do not oppose that motion. Dkt. Nos. 19, 20. The Court agrees with the parties that a 21 stay is appropriate in the interest of judicial economy. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 22 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 23 24 1 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 2 counsel, and for litigants.”). 3 The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to stay this case. Dkt. No. 19.

4 Defendants’ deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint is either 60 days after the United States 5 Attorney’s Office is served, or 21 days after the Court lifts the stay, whichever is later. The parties 6 are ORDERED to provide a joint status report on whether a stay continues to be warranted no later 7 than June 30, 2025. 8 Dated this 16th day of January, 2025. 9 A 10 Kymberly K. Evanson 11 United States District Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24