United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Shane P. Garry, Plaintiff,
Nancy Johnston, CEO/Director, Minnesota Sex Offender Program MSOP, Emily Johnson Piper, Commissioner of Human Services, and Lori Swanson, The Attorney General of the State of Minnesota, Defendants.
P. Garry, (pro se Plaintiff); and
John Derrick, (for Defendants).
N. Leung United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Shane P.
Garry's "Motion for a Stay of These Proceedings
Until an Outcome of Karsjens v. Piper, 845 F.3d 394,
08 [sic] (8[th] Cir. 2017) Has Been Decided" (ECF No.
14) and letter request for an extension of time (ECF No. 25).
Motion to Stay
requests that this matter be stayed pending the resolution of
an appeal filed in Karsjens v. Piper, No. 11-cv-3659
(DWF/TNL). Plaintiff states that "[a]t the core of the
Karsjens v. Piper recent Appeal above is the
Plaintiff[']s argument," and "until the above
appeal has been heard and decided by the 8[th] Circuit Court
of Appeals [i]n Karsjens v. Piper, it would be
detrimental for the present matter to move forward."
(Mot. to Stay at 1.) Defendants oppose the requested stay.
(See generally Defs.' Mem. in Opp'n, ECF No.
power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent
in every court to control the disposition of the causes on
its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and for litigants." Cottrell v. Duke,
737 F.3d 1238, 1248 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting Landis v. N.
Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)); see Sierra Club
v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 446 F.3d 808, 816 (8th
Cir. 2006); Lunde v. Helms, 898 F.2d 1343, 1345 (8th
Cir. 1990) (per curiam). "While the Court's inherent
power to manage its docket places this decision within the
Court's broad discretion, '[t]he proponent of the
stay bears the burden of establishing its need.'"
KK Motors, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., No. 98-cv-2307
(JRT/RLE), 1999 WL 246808, at *2 (D. Minn. Feb. 23, 1999)
(alteration in original) (quoting Clinton v. Jones,
520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997)); accord Stratasys, Inc. v.
Microboards Tech., LLC, No. 13-cv-3228 (DWF/TNL), 2015
WL 1608344, at *l (D. Minn. Apr. 10, 2015) ("The burden
of establishing that a stay is appropriate is with the party
seeking the stay."). Stays are the exception rather than
the rule. KK Motors, 1999 WL 246808, at *2; see
In re Wholesale Grocery Prods. Antitrust Litig., No.
09-md-2090 (ADM/AJB), 2013 WL 6533154, at *l (D. Minn. Dec.
13, 2013) (noting "the Supreme Court has counseled
moderation" in the use of stays).
not clear to this Court the precise basis on which Plaintiff
requests that this matter be stayed. While Plaintiff cites
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in
Karsjens v. Piper, 845 F.3d 394 (8th Cir. 2017),
rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied by the Eighth
Circuit on February 22, 2017, and the United States Supreme
Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari on October
2, 2017, 138 S.Ct. 106 (2017). Plaintiff also states that,
"[o]n or about December 20, 2018 . . .," an appeal
was filed with the Eighth Circuit "from the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota."
(Mot. to Stay at 1.) As best as this Court is able to tell,
Plaintiff may actually be referring to a pending appeal filed
near the end of October 2018 from the district court's
decision in Karsjens v. Piper, 336 F.Supp.3d 974 (D.
Minn. Aug. 23, 2018), appeal filed, No. 18-cv-3343
(8th Cir.). (See ECF No. 1118 in No.
11-cv-3659.) Plaintiff has not, however, connected any of the
issues in his case to the pending appeal in the
Karsjens matter. Plaintiff has not met his burden to
show that a stay is appropriate in this case. Therefore,
Plaintiffs motion to stay is denied.
Plaintiff was referred to the Pro Se Project, a program
operated by the Minnesota Chapter of the Federal Bar
Association through which volunteer individuals donate their
time to assist unrepresented individuals. Plaintiff seeks an
extension of time to file his response to Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 16) in order to confer with counsel as part of that
program. A little over one week later, Plaintiff filed his
memorandum in opposition to Defendants' motion, noting
that (1) he has requested an extension of time; (2) he has
not "yet been able to confer with legal counsel";
and (3) the filing of his memorandum is "not a
withdrawal" of his extension request. (PL's Mem. in
Opp'n at 1, ECF No. 27.) Defendants subsequently filed
their reply memorandum. (See generally Defs.'
Reply, ECF No. 28).
Court will grant Plaintiffs request in part and give him
until May 13, 2019, to file a supplemental memorandum.
Defendants may then have until May 28, 2019, to file a
Defendants' motion to dismiss will be deemed submitted
and the Court will issue its report and recommendation ...