Thurl E. Godfrey, by and through his Guardian and Conservator Kerry Moneypenny v. United States of America

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

AT CHARLESTON

THURL E. GODFREY, by and through his Guardian and Conservator KERRY MONEYPENNY,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-00355

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Government’s Motion to Stay Due to Lapse of Congressional Appropriations, filed on October 28, 2025. [ECF 32]. A district court retains “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); see also Summer Rain v. Donning Company Publishers, Inc., 964 F.2d 1455, 1461 (4th Cir. 1992). Determining whether to stay a proceeding “calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936). The applicant must “justify . . . [the relief sought] by clear and convincing circumstances outweighing potential harm to the party against whom it is operative.” Williford v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 715 F.2d 124, 127 (4th Cir. 1983). Several factors guide the exercise of discretion: “(1) the interests of judicial economy; (2) hardship and equity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) potential prejudice to the non-moving party,” which are “drawn from the Supreme Court’s decision in Landis [v. North American Company].” White v. Ally Financial Inc., 969 F. Supp. 2d 451, 462 (S.D. W. Va. 2013) (cleaned up) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936)). In its motion, the Government contends that “[a]bsent an appropriation . . . certain Department of Justice attorneys and employees of the federal government are prohibited from working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited circumstances.” [Id. at 1]. The

Government represents “the lapse in appropriations requires a reduction in the workforce . . . particularly with respect to prosecution and defense of civil cases.” [Id. at 1–2]. The Government seeks “a stay of these proceedings and any associated deadlines, commensurate with the duration of the lapse in funding, pending restoration of appropriations” [Id.]. The Government has justified its request with “clear and convincing circumstances outweighing potential harm to the party against whom it is operative.” Williford v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 715 F.2d 124, 127 (4th Cir. 1983). The Landis factors, too, weigh in favor of granting a stay. First, judicial economy is served -- and hardship to the Government avoided -- by staying the proceeding inasmuch as the lapse in appropriations has resulted in a reduction in workforce of the

United States Attorney’s Office. Additionally, there is no apparent prejudice to Plaintiff resulting from a temporary stay. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to stay [ECF 32], STAYS all proceedings herein pending restoration of appropriations, and RETIRES this matter to the inactive docket. The Government is DIRECTED to notify the Court in writing of the restoration of appropriations. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this order to all counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. ENTER: November 7, 2025

ae ae as ¥ Frank W. Volk “Tare” Chief United States District Judge