Madison v. Allen et al

Filing 65

ORDER denying 59 Motion to Stay as the motion is premature. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 8/8/2012. (cmj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
VERNON MADISON,
Petitioner,
v.
KIM THOMAS, Commissioner,
Alabama Department of Corrections, et al,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-00009-KD-B

ORDER
This action is before the Court on the Respondents’ Motion to Stay and Hold in Abeyance (Doc.
59) and the Petitioner’s Response thereto (Doc. 64).
Specifically, Respondents seek entry of a stay in this case pending their anticipated filing of an
appeal in the United States Supreme Court. Petitioner does not oppose the Respondents’ request but
suggests a continuance rather than a stay, noting that the Court does not have the power to formally stay
proceedings without an order from the Supreme Court or the Eleventh Circuit recalling the mandate. See
28 U.S.C. § 2101(f); Hovater v. Equifax Servs., Inc., 669 F. Supp. 392, 393-394 (N.D. Ala. 1987).
Regardless, because the Respondents have not yet filed the appeal, the motion is premature.1
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Respondents’ Motion to Stay and Hold in Abeyance (Doc. 59) is
DENIED. Respondents, however, are granted leave to file a motion to continue the proceedings if and
when the appeal is filed in the Supreme Court. Until such time, the present schedule stands.
DONE and ORDERED this the 8th day of August 2012.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The Court’s review of the United States Supreme Court’s docket indicates that to date, no such
appeal has been filed. See http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx (last visited 8/8/12).