Auld v. Central New Mexico Community College et al

Filing 60

ORDER STAYING CASE by District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales. (tah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
RIEMA AULD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:14-cv-636 KG/SCY

CENTRAL NEW MEXICO COMMUNITY COLLEGE,
PAM ETRE-PEREZ, TOM PIERCE,
WILLIAM HEENAN, CAROL ADLER,
TOM MANNING, AND KATHIE WINOGRAD,
Defendants.
ORDER STAYING CASE
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s “Motion for Injunction,” filed
November 1, 2018. (Doc. 45). On November 14, 2018, Defendants filed a response in which
they characterized the “Motion for Injunction” as a “Motion for Reinstatement.” (Doc. 46). On
December 17, 2018, Defendants filed a Notice of Completion of Briefing. (Doc. 53).
The Court observes that numerous motions and documents have been filed since Plaintiff
filed her “Motion for Injunction.” The Court notes that if it denies the “Motion for Injunction”
the subsequent filings necessarily become moot. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and
judicial economy and in accord with a stay, the Court sua sponte prohibits the parties from filing
any more motions or documents until the Court rules on the “Motion for Injunction.” See Landis
v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the
power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy
of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”).

Should any party violate this Order Staying Case, that party will be subject to an order to
show why that party should not be sanctioned for violating a Court order. See Jones v.
Thompson, 996 F.2d 261, 264 (10th Cir. 1993) (“A court also has an ‘inherent power’ to ‘levy
sanctions in response to abusive litigation practices.’” (citation omitted)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2