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)
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?