Mohamed v. Dillard et al

Filing 9

ORDER granting Parties' 8 Stipulated Motion to Hold Case in Abeyance. The case is held in abeyance until 4/9/2025. The parties shall submit a joint status report on or before 4/9/2025. Signed by Judge Jamal N Whitehead. (KRA)

Download PDF
1 District Judge Jamal N. Whitehead 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 AMINA ALI MOHAMED, 10 v. 11 Case No. 2:24-cv-01799-JNW Plaintiff, MARC D. DILLARD, et al., 1 12 Defendants. 13 STIPULATED MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Noted for Consideration: March 6, 2025 14 15 Plaintiff and Defendants, by and through their counsel of record, pursuant to Federal Rule 16 of Civil Procedure 6 and Local Rules 7(d)(1), 10(g) and 16, hereby jointly stipulate and move to 17 continue to stay these proceedings through April 9, 2025. Plaintiff brings this litigation pursuant 18 to the Administrative Procedure Act and Mandamus Act seeking, inter alia, to compel Defendants 19 to readjudicate Plaintiff’s husband’s immigrant visa application. This case is currently stayed 20 through March 10, 2025. Dkt. No. 7, Order. For good cause, the parties request that the Court 21 continue to hold this case in abeyance through April 9, 2025. 22 23 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Defendants substitute Secretary of State Marco Rubio for 24 former Secretary Antony Blinken. STIPULATED MOTION [Case No. 2:24-cv-01799-JNW] - 1 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 1201 PACIFIC AVE., STE. 700 TACOMA, WA 98402 (253) 428-3800 1 Courts have “broad discretion” to stay proceedings. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 2 (1997). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 3 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 4 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 5 With additional time, this case may be resolved without the need of further judicial 6 intervention. Plaintiff’s husband’s visa application remains refused under 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g) for 7 required security screening. Security screening was very recently completed. The consular officer 8 at the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi expects to review the visa application file to determine the 9 additional steps required in processing the visa application. Additional time is required for this 10 process to continue. 11 Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the instant action be stayed until April 9, 12 2025. The parties will submit a joint status report on or before April 9, 2025. 13 DATED this 6th day of March, 2025. 14 Respectfully submitted, 15 TEAL LUTHY MILLER Acting United States Attorney GOLDSTEIN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS s/Joshua L. Goldstein JOSHUA L. GOLDSTEIN, WSBA# 61773 Goldstein Immigration Lawyers 611 Wilshire Boulevard, Ste. 317 Los Angeles, California 90017 Phone: 213-425-1979 Email: jg@jgoldlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 21 s/ Michelle R. Lambert MICHELLE R. LAMBERT, NYS #4666657 Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney’s Office Western District of Washington 1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 700 Tacoma, Washington 98402 Phone: (206) 553-7970 Fax: (206) 553-4067 Email: michelle.lambert@usdoj.gov 22 Attorneys for Defendants 23 I certify that this memorandum contains 269 words, in compliance with the Local Civil Rules. 16 17 18 19 20 24 STIPULATED MOTION [Case No. 2:24-cv-01799-JNW] - 2 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 1201 PACIFIC AVE., STE. 700 TACOMA, WA 98402 (253) 428-3800 [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 2 3 The case is held in abeyance until April 9, 2025. The parties shall submit a joint status report on or before April 9, 2025. It is so ORDERED. 4 5 DATED this 7th day of March, 2025. 6 7 A JAMAL N. WHITEHEAD United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 STIPULATED MOTION [Case No. 2:24-cv-01799-JNW] - 3 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 1201 PACIFIC AVE., STE. 700 TACOMA, WA 98402 (253) 428-3800

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?