AFIFI v. HOLDER et al

Filing 16

ORDER granting 11 Motion to Stay. This action is STAYED pending the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Jones. 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4956 (U.S. June 27, 2011). The parties shall file a joint report regarding the status of this action within thirty (30) days of the Supreme Court's ruling in Jones. Further details within Order. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on 9/12/2011. (lcbah2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

YASIR AFIFI,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 11-00460 (BAH)

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., et al.
Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff Yasir Afifi alleges that unknown agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
violated his constitutional rights by affixing a Global Positioning System (“GPS”) tracking
device to his car to monitor his whereabouts without first obtaining a search warrant. Mr. Afifi
contends the FBI agents’ alleged conduct “subjected Mr. Afifi to a warrantless search forbidden
by the Fourth Amendment,” among other legal violations. Compl. ¶ 48. Accordingly, the
plaintiff brought this lawsuit against the Director of the FBI, the Attorney General of the United
States, and the unknown agents. See generally Compl. The defendants have moved to dismiss
the plaintiff’s claims or for summary judgment. See ECF No. 7.
Presently before the Court is the plaintiff’s motion to stay this case pending the outcome
of United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Jones. 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4956
(U.S. June 27, 2011). In Jones, the Supreme Court will determine whether government agents
violated the Fourth Amendment “by installing [a] GPS tracking device on [a] vehicle without a
valid warrant and without [] consent.” Id. The plaintiff contends that “resolution of this issue
will have a dispositive effect on Plaintiff’s case” and, accordingly, the plaintiff requests a stay of
this action pending the Supreme Court’s decision. Pl.’s Mot. for Stay at 1. The plaintiff argues
1 

that a stay will avoid potentially unnecessary pretrial activities and promote judicial economy.
Further, the plaintiff argues that a stay will not prejudice the defendants.
The defendants oppose a stay on the grounds that the plaintiff’s claims should be
dismissed without reaching the Fourth Amendment issue, as detailed in their dispositive motion.
Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Stay at 2-3. Defendants contend that a stay would “force
defendants to wait far longer than should be necessary to resolve this litigation.” Id. at 3. The
defendants concede, however, that “if defendants’ pending motion is denied [there might] be a
need to await the Supreme Court’s disposition of Jones.” Id.
“A trial court has broad discretion to stay all proceedings in an action pending the
resolution of independent proceedings elsewhere.” Am. Ctr. for Civil Justice v. Ambush, No. 090233, 2011 WL 2600497, at *4 (D.D.C. July 1, 2011) (citation omitted). “Nevertheless, if, upon
a party’s request, there is even a fair possibility that the stay for which the movant prays will
work damage to someone else, then the movant must make out a clear case of hardship or
inequity in being required to go forward.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
Here, the defendants have not identified how they will be harmed by a stay. While the
defendants claim a stay would force them “to wait far longer than should be necessary to resolve
this litigation,” a stay, by definition, results in some delay. The defendants, however, do not
identify how a delay will specifically injure their interests. Nor is it clear that a stay will actually
delay the resolution of this case because the defendants admit that the Court might “need to await
the Supreme Court’s disposition of Jones” in order to resolve this case if their pending
dispositive motion is denied in whole or in part. Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Stay at 3. On the
other hand, if the Court stays this case pending the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jones, the Court
may avoid the need to rule on the issues currently raised in the defendants’ pending dispositive

2 

motion. In addition, a stay may avoid potentially unnecessary pretrial activities and discovery.
Thus, the Court finds that the interests of justice and efficient judicial administration weigh in
favor of staying this case pending the Supreme Court’s ruling. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that this action is STAYED pending the ruling of the United States Supreme
Court in United States v. Jones. 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4956 (U.S. June 27, 2011); and it is further
ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint report regarding the status of this action
within thirty (30) days of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jones; and it is further
ORDERED that, if necessary, the defendants shall serve and file an updated version of
their dispositive motion within thirty (30) days of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jones; and it is
further
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s opposition to the defendants’ updated motion shall be
served and filed within fourteen (14) days of service of that motion; and that any reply in further
support of the defendants’ updated motion shall be filed within seven (7) days thereafter.
SO ORDERED.

/s/ Beryl A. Howell
BERYL A. HOWELL
United States District Judge

DATED: SEPTEMBER 12, 2011

3