IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

SAMUEL SIGOLOFF, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, et al., 

Defendants.

No. 4:22-CV-00923-P

OFFICIAL-CAPACITY DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSED MOTION 

TO STAY DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Official-capacity Defendants (“Defendants”) respectfully move the Court to stay their

deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, from Monday, December 19, 2022, pending the Court’s decision on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 2.

1 Plaintiff 

opposes this request for a stay, which is supported by good cause as set forth below. Plaintiff does 

not oppose the alternative motion for an extension of the deadline described in ¶ 7.

1. On November 14, 2022, the Court granted Defendants’ unopposed Motion for an 

Extension of Time to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, requiring that response to be filed by December 9, 2022. On November 29, 2022, the Court also granted Defendants’ Motion to Substitute Counsel. Most recently, on December 9, 2022, following the change in 

counsel, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

2. Between the change in counsel and the time required for newly assigned counsel to 

1 Plaintiff served a copy of the complaint on the United States Attorney for the Northern 

District of Texas on October 21, 2022. See ECF No. 11 ¶ 1. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(2), Defendants’ Rule 12 deadline to respond to the complaint falls on December 19, 2022.

Case 4:22-cv-00923-P Document 18 Filed 12/15/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID 219
2

respond to Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion, Defendants would need additional time beyond December 19 to prepare an anticipated Rule 12 motion to dismiss.

3. Further, Defendants also intend to file an appropriate venue motion under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1406(a). Based on their review of the complaint allegations, Defendants are aware of no colorable basis for venue in the Northern District of Texas, and thus intend to move to dismiss and/or 

transfer this action to an appropriate venue. 

4. Staying the deadline for Defendants’ Rule 12 response to the complaint would serve 

the interests of judicial economy and the parties’ resources by permitting the parties to focus their 

efforts on addressing venue questions and allowing the Court sufficient time to consider Defendants’ anticipated venue motion.

5. Finally, the Court has before it Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction and Defendants’ 

opposition brief, with any reply from Plaintiff presumably forthcoming. Defendant’s opposition 

brief raised multiple case-dispositive issues, including lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which 

would provide the Court a basis to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims sua sponte. Providing the Court additional time to address those issues without the necessity of simultaneous Rule 12 proceedings 

would also conserve party and judicial resources.

6. For all those reasons, Defendants ask the Court to stay their existing Rule 12 deadline, with any response to the Complaint due 21 days after the latter of the Court’s decisions on: 

(i) Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion; and (ii) Defendants’ anticipated venue motion under 

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (if the case remains pending before this Court following its decision on the 

anticipated venue motion).

7. In the alternative, should the Court be disinclined to stay Defendants’ Rule 12 response deadline for these reasons, Defendants respectfully request an extension of that deadline 

from December 19, 2022 to Monday, January 9, 2023, for the reasons described in ¶ 2, above.

Case 4:22-cv-00923-P Document 18 Filed 12/15/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID 220
3

Plaintiff does not oppose such an extension.

A proposed order staying the deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint is attached. As 

an alternative, a proposed order extending the deadline is also attached. 

DATED: December 16, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN M. BOYNTON

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Civil Division

CHRISTOPHER R. HALL

Assistant Branch Director 

/s/ Kevin K. Bell

KEVIN K. BELL (GA Bar No. 967210)

Trial Attorney

Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division

U.S. Department of Justice

1100 L St. NW

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: (202) 305-8613

Fax: (202) 616-8460

Email: kevin.k.bell@usdoj.gov

Counsel for Official-Capacity Defendants

Case 4:22-cv-00923-P Document 18 Filed 12/15/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID 221
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On December 16, 2022, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the clerk 

of court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing 

system of the court. I hereby certify that I have served all parties electronically or by another 

manner authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2).

/s/ Kevin K. Bell

KEVIN K. BELL (GA Bar No. 967210)

Trial Attorney

Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division

U.S. Department of Justice

1100 L St. NW

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: (202) 305-8613

Fax: (202) 616-8460

Email: kevin.k.bell@usdoj.gov

Counsel for Official-Capacity Defendants

Case 4:22-cv-00923-P Document 18 Filed 12/15/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID 222
5

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

On December 15, 2022, I conferred electronically with Sean C. Timmons, counsel for 

plaintiff. The motion for stay is opposed. The alternative motion to extend the deadline to respond to the Complaint is unopposed.

/s/ Kevin K. Bell

KEVIN K. BELL (GA Bar No. 967210)

Trial Attorney

Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division

U.S. Department of Justice

1100 L St. NW

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: (202) 305-8613

Fax: (202) 616-8460

Email: kevin.k.bell@usdoj.gov

Counsel for Official-Capacity Defendants

Case 4:22-cv-00923-P Document 18 Filed 12/15/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID 223
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

SAMUEL SIGOLOFF, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00923-P

PROPOSED ORDER 1

Upon consideration of Defendants’ Opposed Motion to Stay Deadline to Respond to 

Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion. This order STAYS Defendants’ 

deadline to respond to the Complaint. Any answer will be due 21 days after the latter of the 

Court’s decisions on: (i) Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion; and (ii) Defendants’ anticipated venue motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (if the case remains pending before this Court following its decision on the anticipated venue motion).

SO ORDERED on this ___ day of _______________.

_____________________

Mark T. Pittman

United States District Judge

Case 4:22-cv-00923-P Document 18 Filed 12/15/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID 224
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

SAMUEL SIGOLOFF, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00923-P

PROPOSED ORDER 2

Upon consideration of Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Extend the Deadline to Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion. Any answer to Plaintiff’s 

Complaint will be due on January 9, 2023.

SO ORDERED on this ___ day of _______________.

_____________________

Mark T. Pittman

United States District Judge

Case 4:22-cv-00923-P Document 18 Filed 12/15/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID 225