Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00896/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00896-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Scott Huminski, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Hector Heretia, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV11-0896 PHX DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Scott Huminski has filed a Motion To Stay Pending Appeal. Doc. 70. 

For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied. 

 “The standard for evaluating stays pending appeal is similar to that employed by 

district courts in deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction.” Lopez v. Heckler, 

713 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983). The moving party must show both a probability of 

success on the merits and irreparable injury, or the existence of serious questions and that 

the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor. Id. As explained in the Court’s orders 

denying Plaintiff’s first and second motions for preliminary injunctions, Plaintiff has 

failed to meet this standard. See Docs. 42, 68. Plaintiff therefore has not shown that he is 

entitled to a stay pending appeal. 

 Plaintiff has also filed a Notice of Dismissal of Claims. Doc. 72. The notice 

purports to dismiss “all claims in this suit that are not related to the issues presented in 

future decisions of the two appeals of this case now pending before the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court.” Id. The notice is 

ineffective for two reasons. 

Case 2:11-cv-00896-DGC Document 74 Filed 10/27/11 Page 1 of 2
‐ 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 

 First, once defendants have filed an answer (as they have in this case), a plaintiff 

may dismiss claims only by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties or by 

obtaining a court order approving the dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A) & (B). 

Plaintiff has not filed a stipulation or sought a ruling from the Court. 

 Second, the notice does not clearly identify the claims Plaintiff attempts to 

dismiss. The Court’s previous orders denied Plaintiff’s requests for preliminary 

injunctive relief. Plaintiff states that he is dismissing all claims not related to the appeals 

of those orders, but the claims underlying Plaintiff’s requests for preliminary injunctive 

relief also underlie his requests for permanent injunctive relief. Thus, it is not clear from 

the order precisely what claims Plaintiff is attempting to dismiss. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Pending Appeal (Doc. 70) is denied. 

 2. Plaintiff’s Notice of Dismissal of Claims (Doc. 72) is ineffective. This case 

remains in existence and governed by the Case Management Order (Doc. 58). 

 Dated this 27th day of October, 2011. 

Case 2:11-cv-00896-DGC Document 74 Filed 10/27/11 Page 2 of 2