Douandju v. Crawford et al

Filing 21

ORDER GRANTING 17 Motion to Stay; Court VACATES Scheduling Conference set for 6/3/2015, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/23/2015. (Status Report due by: 12/15/2015 (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM DOUANDJU,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:14-cv-01493-GSA

v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

JONATHAN CRAWFORD, et al.,
Defendants.

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

On September 24, 2014, Plaintiff William Douandju (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against
a number of defendants associated with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. Department of Justice. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff, a permanent
resident of the United States, alleged that Defendants had failed to adjudicate his naturalization
application in a timely fashion and asked the Court to review his petition for naturalization under
8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). On December 11, 2014, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security notified
Plaintiff that it had initiated removal proceedings against him, with a hearing date and time to be
determined. Defendants now move for a stay in the current action until the removal proceeding
can be resolved. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff has not filed any opposition or statement of nonopposition to the motion.
A court “has the inherent authority to control its own docket and calendar.” Yong v. I.N.S.,
208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). Courts can enter a stay in an action where the outcome of a
1

1
2
3
4
5

separate proceeding may have an impact on that action:
. . . [a] trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and
the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending
resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case. This rule applies
whether the separate proceedings are judicial, administrative, or arbitral in
character, and does not require that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily
controlling of the action before the court.

6

Id. at 1119-20, quoting Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal. Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir.

7

1979). The applicable framework to determine whether a stay is appropriate requires the Court to

8

examine “the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal” of the stay.

9

Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Among those competing interests

10

are the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity

11

which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice

12

measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which

13

could be expected to result from a stay”).

14

Case law establishes that removal actions “take precedence over naturalization

15

applications.” De Lara Bellajaro v. Schiltgen, 378 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2004). In fact, the

16

mere existence of a removal action may strip a court of the ability to make an ultimate

17

determination concerning a simultaneously occurring naturalization action. Ajlani v. Chertoff, 545

18

F.3d 229, 239 (2d Cir. 2008), citing De Lara Bellajaro v. Schiltgen, 378 F.3d 1042, 1046-47 (9th

19

Cir. 2004) (“the district court could not proceed to review the naturalization application itself,

20

much less grant naturalization or even declare the applicant eligible for naturalization but for the

21

pending removal proceedings”).

22

Consequently, it is unlikely that Plaintiff would suffer any hardship or prejudice if the

23

motion to stay is granted. Indeed, so long as the removal action is proceeding, the Court is

24

entirely unable to approve his naturalization application. Depending on the outcome of the

25

removal action, the current action may even be rendered moot, considerably simplifying this

26

action. The balance of interests thus supports the stay.

27
28

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to stay this action pending the conclusion of Plaintiff’s
removal action is GRANTED. Defendants shall file a status report no later than December 15,
2

1

2015 apprising the Court of the progress of Plaintiff’s removal proceedings.

2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 23, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3