Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-03539/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-03539-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act

---

ORDER – No. 18-cv-03539-LB

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

S.A., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-03539-LB

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

STAY CASE

Re: ECF No. 57

On January 8, 2019, the defendants moved to stay the case because the appropriations act 

funding the Department of Justice (DOJ) has expired and appropriations to the DOJ have lapsed.1

The defendants request a stay of all case deadlines until Congress restores appropriations to the 

DOJ.2 The defendants state that absent appropriations, “Department of Justice attorneys are 

prohibited from working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited circumstances, 

including ‘emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.’”3

 

1 Defs. Mot. to Stay – ECF No. 57 at 2 (¶ 1). Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File 

(“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

2

Id. (¶ 3).

3

Id. (¶ 2) (quoting 31 U.S.C. § 1342).

Case 3:18-cv-03539-LB Document 60 Filed 01/11/19 Page 1 of 2
ORDER – No. 18-cv-03539-LB 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

On January 10, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion. The plaintiffs 

argue that the CAM Parole Program beneficiaries at issue in this case are at specific and ongoing 

risk of harm and this case therefore involves the safety of human life.4 The plaintiffs also note that 

the parties have already completed a full round of briefing and had oral argument on the pending 

motion for a preliminary injunction; the defendants’ current deadline is for only a limited response 

to the plaintiffs’ limited supplemental briefing and thus, the plaintiffs argue, will not be 

particularly burdensome to the defendants.

5 The plaintiffs state that they are willing to meet and 

confer with the defendants about a limited, reasonable extension of the briefing schedule if needed 

but that they oppose the defendants’ proposed stay, which threatens to extend the defendants’ 

response date and delay the case indefinitely.6

Courts faced with similar requests in similar situations have denied governmental motions to 

stay. See, e.g., Doe v. Nielsen, No. 3:18-cv-03539-LB, slip op. at 2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2019), ECF 

No. 59 (citing cases); O.A. v. Trump, No. 1:18-cv-02718-RDM, minute order (D.D.C. Dec. 27, 

2018). This court likewise denies the defendants’ motion to stay here. This order constitutes 

express legal authorization for the government to continue litigating this case under the 

Antideficiency Act. Cf. Doe, slip op. at 2 (court order denying stay constitutes “authoriz[ation] by 

law” for the government to continue litigating under 21 U.S.C. § 1342); accord U.S. Dep’t of 

Justice, FY 2019 Contingency Plan at 3 (Sept. 11, 2018), available at https://www.justice.gov/

jmd/page/file/1015676/download (last visited Jan. 11, 2019) (reaching the same conclusion). The 

parties should continue to meet and confer in good faith regarding the briefing schedule and other 

matters in this case as necessary and appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2019 ______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

 

4 Pls. Mot. to Stay Opp’n – ECF No. 59 at 3–4.

5

Id. at 5.

6

Id. at 2, 5.

Case 3:18-cv-03539-LB Document 60 Filed 01/11/19 Page 2 of 2