Huminski v. Heretia et al
ORDER denying 70 Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Pending Appeal. Plaintiff's Notice of Dismissal of Claims (Doc. 72) is ineffective. This case remains in existence and governed by the Case Management Order (Doc. 58). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10/27/11.(LSP)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
No. CV11-0896 PHX DGC
Hector Heretia, et al.,
Plaintiff Scott Huminski has filed a Motion To Stay Pending Appeal. Doc. 70.
For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.
“The standard for evaluating stays pending appeal is similar to that employed by
district courts in deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction.” Lopez v. Heckler,
713 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983). The moving party must show both a probability of
success on the merits and irreparable injury, or the existence of serious questions and that
the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor. Id. As explained in the Court’s orders
denying Plaintiff’s first and second motions for preliminary injunctions, Plaintiff has
failed to meet this standard. See Docs. 42, 68. Plaintiff therefore has not shown that he is
entitled to a stay pending appeal.
Plaintiff has also filed a Notice of Dismissal of Claims. Doc. 72. The notice
purports to dismiss “all claims in this suit that are not related to the issues presented in
future decisions of the two appeals of this case now pending before the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court.” Id. The notice is
ineffective for two reasons.
First, once defendants have filed an answer (as they have in this case), a plaintiff
may dismiss claims only by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties or by
obtaining a court order approving the dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A) & (B).
Plaintiff has not filed a stipulation or sought a ruling from the Court.
Second, the notice does not clearly identify the claims Plaintiff attempts to
injunctive relief. Plaintiff states that he is dismissing all claims not related to the appeals
of those orders, but the claims underlying Plaintiff’s requests for preliminary injunctive
relief also underlie his requests for permanent injunctive relief. Thus, it is not clear from
The Court’s previous orders denied Plaintiff’s requests for preliminary
the order precisely what claims Plaintiff is attempting to dismiss.
IT IS ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Pending Appeal (Doc. 70) is denied.
Plaintiff’s Notice of Dismissal of Claims (Doc. 72) is ineffective. This case
remains in existence and governed by the Case Management Order (Doc. 58).
Dated this 27th day of October, 2011.
‐ 2 ‐
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?