Shaun Darnell Garland v. C. Flores

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01061
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAUN DARNELL GARLAND, Case No. 2:20-cv-1061-DAD-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 C. FLORES, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On July 16, 2025, the Court of Appeals issued a memorandum that denied plaintiff’s 18 appeal of the district court’s order granting summary judgment against him. ECF No. 73. The 19 Court of Appeals’s mandate issued November 10, 2025. ECF No. 74. Plaintiff has now filed two 20 motions: a motion to stay and a motion to recall the mandate. ECF Nos. 75 & 76. Plaintiff 21 argues that a stay or recall is needed so that he can “prepare for a ‘rehearing en banc [because] 22 consideration by the full court is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the courts 23 decisions.’” ECF No. 75 at 4. 24 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d) grants circuit courts the power to “stay the 25 issuance of a mandate pending review by the Supreme Court.” See Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)(2)(A) 26 (instructing that a motion “to stay the mandate pending the filing of a petition for a writ of 27 certiorari in the Supreme Court . . . must show that the certiorari petition would present a 28 substantial question and that there is good cause for a stay”). Requests to stay a mandate are 1 | generally addressed to the Court of Appeals. However, when a motion to stay enforcement of a 2 | judgment is addressed to the district court, courts consider, among other things, whether the party 3 | seeking the stay has demonstrated both “a reasonable probability of succeeding on the merits” 4 | and “irreparable injury absent a stay.” See Bricklayers Local 21 of Illinois Apprenticeship and 5 | Training Program v. Banner Restoration, Inc., 384 F.3d 911, 912 (7th Cir. 2004); see also 6 | Hollingsworth vy. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (“To obtain a stay pending the filing and 7 | disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, an applicant must show (1) a reasonable 8 | probability that four Justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari; 9 | (2)a fair prospect that a majority of the Court will vote to reverse the judgment below; and (3) a 10 | likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay.”). 11 Here, plaintiff has advanced no arguments demonstrating either his reasonable probability 12 | of succeeding on the merits or what irreparable injury he faces absent a stay. Without such a 13 | showing, plaintiff's motions must be denied. 14 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motions to stay and recall the Court 15 | of Appeals mandate, ECF Nos. 75 & 76, are DENIED. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ December 4, 2025 q——— 19 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28