Comanche Nation of Oklahoma v. Zinke et al

Filing 48

ORDER granting plaintiff's 45 motion to stay; further proceedings in the case are STAYED until the appeal is decided; plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss will be due 21 days after issuance of the Circuit's decision. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 1/26/2018. (cla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
COMANCHE NATION OF OKLAHOMA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RYAN ZINKE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-17-887-HE

ORDER
Plaintiff has moved for a stay of proceedings in this case pending the Tenth Circuit’s
decision on plaintiff’s appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction. The federal
defendants oppose the motion, arguing that waiting on the appellate disposition would
unnecessarily delay the resolution of the case. In particular, they seek to move forward
with consideration of their motion to dismiss, which they argue involves a challenge to the
subject matter jurisdiction of the court.
As the parties acknowledge, an appeal from denial of a preliminary injunction does
not automatically suspend the district court’s authority to go forward. Free Speech v. Fed.
Election Comm’n, 720 F.3d 788, 792 (10th Cir. 2013). However, the court has the
discretion to stay further proceedings pending appeal if it is warranted in the circumstances
of the particular case.
Here, the court concludes a stay is warranted. The court’s denial of the preliminary
injunction motion was based largely on various legal conclusions as to plaintiff’s claims
and arguments and the impact of those conclusions on plaintiff’s likelihood of success.
There is considerable potential overlap between the issues before the Court of Appeals and

those involved in a merits resolution here. There is therefore a significant potential that
the Circuit’s disposition of the appeal may resolve, or at least shape the resolution of, issues
involved in the merits determination here.
Further, the court is disinclined to proceed immediately with determination of the
motion to dismiss. Preliminary review of that motion suggests it is directed, in substantial
part, to the question of whether plaintiff has stated a claim or can prevail on its claims
rather than to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The two questions are not the same.
The fact that plaintiff may be unable to ultimately prevail on a particular claim does not
mean that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider it. Similarly, defendants’
arguments as to standing either do not relate to standing in any strict sense or, to the extent
that they do, not all claims are affected.
In the particular circumstances of this case, the court concludes it is appropriate to
await the decision of the Court of Appeals before going forward with a merits
determination here.
Plaintiff’s motion to stay [Doc. # 45] is GRANTED. Further proceedings in the
case are STAYED until the appeal is decided. Plaintiff’s response to the motion to dismiss
will be due 21 days after issuance of the Circuit’s decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 26th day of January 2018.

2