Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01493/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01493-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 8:1446 Petition for Naturalization Hearing

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM DOUANDJU,

Plaintiff,

v.

JONATHAN CRAWFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01493-GSA

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

(ECF No. 22)

On December 15, 2014, Defendants moved to stay the present litigation while removal 

proceedings were pending against Plaintiff William Douandju (“Plaintiff”). (ECF No. 17.) The 

Court granted that motion on April 23, 2015. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff did not file any briefing in 

opposition to the motion to stay. On May 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the motion to 

stay, asking that the Court “dismiss motion to stay [sic] by the Government” and to “clear the 

way for [Plaintiff] to be able to move to have the Attorney General terminate the removal 

proceedings pending against him.” (Motion to strike 13:13-15, ECF No. 22.) 

Plaintiff’s Motion consists of two parts. The first part appears to be an opposition brief 

opposing Defendants’ motion to stay. In the second part, Plaintiff seeks to establish his “good 

moral character” as it relates to the underlying merits of his case. 

The underlying merits of Plaintiff’s naturalization application are not relevant to the 

disposition of this Motion. To the extent the Motion constitutes an opposition brief to the motion 

Case 1:14-cv-01493-EPG Document 24 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

to stay, it is untimely and thus need not be considered.1See Local Rule 230(c); Huey v. City of 

Vallejo, No. 2:13-cv-00916-JAM-KJN, 2013 WL 6185525, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2013). To 

the extent it constitutes a motion for reconsideration of the order granting the motion to stay, it 

does not establish any “new or different facts or circumstances . . . which did not exist . . . upon 

such prior motion,” nor does it establish good cause “why the facts or circumstances were not 

shown at the time of the prior motion.” Local Rule 230(j); Credit Bureau Connection, Inc. v. 

Pardini, 726 F.Supp.2d 1107, 1132 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (“Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask 

the court to rethink what it has already thought”). Reconsideration is thus inappropriate here.

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion and has determined that it does not alter the 

Court’s analysis with respect to the order granting the motion to stay (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Strike is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 To say nothing of the fact that it was submitted after the order had already been issued.

Case 1:14-cv-01493-EPG Document 24 Filed 05/22/15 Page 2 of 2