Andujo-Andujo v. Longshore et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying 20 Motion To Administratively Close Case by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/27/15.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01532-REB
RAUL ARTURO ANDUJO-ANDUJO,
Petitioner,
v.
JOHN LONGSHORE, Field Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
JEH JOHNSON, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security;
JOHN MORTON, Director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and
ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General, United States of America;
Respondents.

ORDER CONCERNING MOTION TO ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE CASE
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is the Motion To Administratively Close Case [#20]1
filed March 18, 2015. No response has been filed. I deny the motion, but extend the
current deadline for the respondents to file a response to the pending petition for writ of
habeas corpus.
In the motion, the respondents note the case Olmos v. Holder, et al., 14-1085
currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
According to the respondents, the ruling of the Tenth Circuit in Olmos will provide a
binding rule which will control the ultimate disposition of the above-captioned case. The
respondents seek administrative closure of this case pending a ruling in Olmos. In a

1

“[#20]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

supplement [#22] filed March 24, 2015, the respondents report that a decision in Olmos
was issued by the Tenth Circuit on March 24, 2015. That decision is contrary to the
position taken by the petitioner in the above-captioned case. As outlined by the
respondents, it may take as many as 52 days before the Tenth Circuit issues a mandate
and the Olmos decision becomes final.
Given these circumstances, I find there is good cause to extend the deadline for
the respondents to file a response to the petition [#1] of the applicant in this case and I
extend that deadline to May 29, 2015. However, the present circumstances do not
merit administrative closure of this case.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Motion To Administratively Close Case [#20] filed March 18,
2015, is denied; and
2. That the deadline for the respondents to file a response to the petition [#1] of
the petitioner, as set in my earlier order [#18], is extended to May 29, 2015.
Dated March 27, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2