Douandju v. Crawford et al

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING 22 Motion to Strike, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/21/2015. (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 DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

JONATHAN CRAWFORD, et al.,
Defendants.

(ECF No. 22)

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

On December 15, 2014, Defendants moved to stay the present litigation while removal
proceedings were pending against Plaintiff William Douandju (“Plaintiff”). (ECF No. 17.) The
Court granted that motion on April 23, 2015. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff did not file any briefing in
opposition to the motion to stay. On May 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the motion to
stay, asking that the Court “dismiss motion to stay [sic] by the Government” and to “clear the
way for [Plaintiff] to be able to move to have the Attorney General terminate the removal
proceedings pending against him.” (Motion to strike 13:13-15, ECF No. 22.)
Plaintiff’s Motion consists of two parts. The first part appears to be an opposition brief
opposing Defendants’ motion to stay. In the second part, Plaintiff seeks to establish his “good
moral character” as it relates to the underlying merits of his case.
The underlying merits of Plaintiff’s naturalization application are not relevant to the
disposition of this Motion. To the extent the Motion constitutes an opposition brief to the motion
1

1

to stay, it is untimely and thus need not be considered.1 See Local Rule 230(c); Huey v. City of

2

Vallejo, No. 2:13-cv-00916-JAM-KJN, 2013 WL 6185525, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2013). To

3

the extent it constitutes a motion for reconsideration of the order granting the motion to stay, it

4

does not establish any “new or different facts or circumstances . . . which did not exist . . . upon

5

such prior motion,” nor does it establish good cause “why the facts or circumstances were not

6

shown at the time of the prior motion.” Local Rule 230(j); Credit Bureau Connection, Inc. v.

7

Pardini, 726 F.Supp.2d 1107, 1132 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (“Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask

8

the court to rethink what it has already thought”). Reconsideration is thus inappropriate here.

9

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion and has determined that it does not alter the

10

Court’s analysis with respect to the order granting the motion to stay (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff’s

11

Motion to Strike is DENIED.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

14

May 21, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

To say nothing of the fact that it was submitted after the order had already been issued.

2