Garba v. Waukesha County Circuit Court

Filing 6

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 3/1/2017 DENYING 2 Petitioner's Motion to Stay. (cc: all counsel) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ALI GARBA,
Petitioner,

Case No. 17-CV-244-JPS

v.
WAUKESHA COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT,

ORDER
Respondent.
On February 28, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion to stay the criminal
proceedings against him in Wisconsin state court. (Docket #2). Petitioner’s
sentence on the underlying criminal charge was stayed pending his appeals
through the state court system. Id. at 2. Those appeals ended on February 13,
2017, and Petitioner filed the instant action on February 27, 2017. Id. That
same day, the Circuit Court for Waukesha County lifted the stay on
Petitioner’s sentence and ordered him to surrender to the county sheriff,
effective March 17, 2017. Id.
Petitioner brings his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2251, which
permits federal courts to order that a state court proceeding be stayed
pending resolution of a habeas proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2251(a)(1). As with
any other injunction, to claim entitlement to a stay, Petitioner must show “(1)
he has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) he will suffer
irreparable injury unless the injunction issues; (3) the stay would not
substantially harm the other litigant; and (4) if issued, the injunction would
not be adverse to the public interest.” Powell v. Thomas, 641 F.3d 1255, 1257
(11th Cir. 2011).

The entirety of his argument in support is two sentences:
7.

8.

Ali Garba will suffer immediate and irreparable harm if
the stay of sentence is lifted, in that he will be taken into
custody.
There is a likelihood of success on the merits of Ali
Garba’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

(Docket #2 at 2). These representations fall woefully short of establishing
each of the four required elements; only two elements are referenced and
even those are treated conclusorily. Thus, the Court declines to exercise its
discretion in favor of granting the requested stay. Petitioner’s motion will be
denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner’s motion to stay (Docket #2) be
and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 1st day of March, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2