Roque v. Bardini et al

Filing 15

ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 9/1/2010. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2010)

Download PDF
Roque v. Bardini et al Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California LUCAS ANTONIO ROQUE, v. Plaintiff, No. C 10-3242 MEJ ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING EMILIA BARDINI, et al., Defendants. _____________________________________/ Before the Court is Plaintiff Lucas Roque's Emergency Motion for Administrative Relief, filed August 27, 2010. (Dkt. #6.) In his motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court stay the execution of a February 14, 1989 deportation order against him. Defendants have filed an Opposition, (Dkt. #10), to which Plaintiff has filed a Reply (Dkt. #13.) Upon review of the parties' submissions, the Court finds that further briefing is appropriate prior to issuing a decision. Specifically, in their opposition, Defendants argue that the Court has no authority to stay a deportation order. In support of this argument, Defendants cite to De Leon v. Napolitano, 2009 WL 4823358, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 2009). However, in De Leon, the Honorable James Ware granted the plaintiff's motion for stay of execution of removal order, in order to allow him to rule on the merits of the plaintiff's claims. De Leon v. Napolitano, C-09-3664 JW, Dkt. #8 at 2:4-5. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendants to show why the undersigned should not grant Plaintiff's motion in order to allow the Court to rule on the merits of Petitioner's claims. Defendants shall file a response to this Order by September 2, 2010 at 3:00 p.m., and Plaintiff may file any reply by September 3, 2010 at 12:00 p.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: September 1, 2010 _______________________________ Maria-Elena James Chief United States Magistrate Judge

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?