Polus v. Radel

S.D. California

Polus v. Radel

DecidedMay 9, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-00542

StatusUnknown

This text of Polus v. Radel (Polus v. Radel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Polus v. Radel, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SALWA JIRJEES POLUS, Case No.: 25-CV-542 JLS (DEB)

11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 12 v. MOTION TO STAY

13 DAVID M. RADEL, Los Angeles Asylum (ECF No. 3) Office, Director, U.S. Citizenship and 14 Immigration Services, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Stay (“Joint Mot.,” ECF 18 No. 3). In this case, Plaintiff seeks adjudication of her asylum application, which has been 19 pending for nearly ten years. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 6. The Parties now represent that 20 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has scheduled an asylum interview 21 for Plaintiff on September 25, 2025, which—based on USCIS estimates—should result in 22 an adjudication of Plaintiff’s pending application by January 23, 2026. Joint Mot. at 1. 23 The Parties wish to stay this litigation until that time. Id. 24 “District courts have inherent authority to stay proceedings before them.” Rohan ex 25 rel. Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803, 817 (9th Cir. 2003), abrogated on other grounds by 26 Ryan v. Gonzales, 568 U.S. 57 (2013). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to 27 the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with 28 economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 1 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that granting the 2 || requested stay would best promote the interests of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive 3 || determination of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the 4 || Parties’ Joint Motion (ECF No. 3). This action is hereby STAYED until January 23, 2026, 5 ||and all deadlines, including Defendants’ deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint, are 6 || VACATED until further order of the Court. The Parties SHALL FILE a joint status report 7 || on or before the conclusion of this stay if Plaintiff has not voluntarily dismissed this action 8 || before that date. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: May 9, 2025 jae L. Lo memeaite- ll on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SALWA JIRJEES POLUS, Case No.: 25-CV-542 JLS (DEB)

11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 12 v. MOTION TO STAY

13 DAVID M. RADEL, Los Angeles Asylum (ECF No. 3) Office, Director, U.S. Citizenship and 14 Immigration Services, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Stay (“Joint Mot.,” ECF 18 No. 3). In this case, Plaintiff seeks adjudication of her asylum application, which has been 19 pending for nearly ten years. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 6. The Parties now represent that 20 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has scheduled an asylum interview 21 for Plaintiff on September 25, 2025, which—based on USCIS estimates—should result in 22 an adjudication of Plaintiff’s pending application by January 23, 2026. Joint Mot. at 1. 23 The Parties wish to stay this litigation until that time. Id. 24 “District courts have inherent authority to stay proceedings before them.” Rohan ex 25 rel. Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803, 817 (9th Cir. 2003), abrogated on other grounds by 26 Ryan v. Gonzales, 568 U.S. 57 (2013). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to 27 the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with 28 economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 1 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that granting the 2 || requested stay would best promote the interests of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive 3 || determination of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the 4 || Parties’ Joint Motion (ECF No. 3). This action is hereby STAYED until January 23, 2026, 5 ||and all deadlines, including Defendants’ deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint, are 6 || VACATED until further order of the Court. The Parties SHALL FILE a joint status report 7 || on or before the conclusion of this stay if Plaintiff has not voluntarily dismissed this action 8 || before that date. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: May 9, 2025 jae L. Lo memeaite- ll on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Polus v. Radel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polus-v-radel-casd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack