Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 17, 2026

Fleming v. United States of America

Judge
Lin
Docket
3:22-cv-05082
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1

Counsel12 of record
PLAINTIFF
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLPLLP5 attorneys
Nicholas Reddick, David Denton Doak, Erica Symone Miranda
Cooley LLPLLP3 attorneys
Anika Holland, Isabella McKinley Corbo, Remy Carreiro
Willkie Farr & Gallahger LLPLLP
Meghan Olivar
DEFENDANT
Renee A. Bacchus DOJ-USAO
Kimberly L. Lubrani DOJ-USAO
Michael A. Keough United States Attorney's Office

Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.

Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Fleming v. United States, Judge Lin stayed Fleming’s Bivens claim pending Nielsen v. Watanabe and held Jusino’s motion to dismiss in abeyance.

Who this affects

Rhonda Fleming’s Bivens claim is paused; Thahesha Jusino’s motion to dismiss remains undecided, and the parties must file a joint status report after the Supreme Court’s decision.

What happened

In Rhonda Fleming v. United States of America, et al., Thahesha Jusino asked the court to pause Rhonda Fleming’s Bivens claim until the Supreme Court decides Nielsen v. Watanabe.

Fleming said a pause was unnecessary but agreed that the Supreme Court’s decision would affect the claim’s analysis. She did not oppose the pause if Jusino’s motion to dismiss also remained undecided and the pause did not limit discovery concerning her other claims.

Judge Rita F. Lin granted the motion to stay the Bivens claim, held Jusino’s motion to dismiss in abeyance, and ordered the parties to file a joint status report within 30 days after the Supreme Court decides Watanabe.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Fleming v. United States of America · No. 3:22-cv-05082
Judge
Lin
Date
Aug. 17, 2026

Background

Thahesha Jusino moved to stay Rhonda Fleming’s Bivens claim while the Supreme Court considers Nielsen v. Watanabe, No. 25-417. The Supreme Court had granted review in that case.

Parties’ Positions

Fleming did not believe a stay was necessary, but she agreed that the Supreme Court’s decision could affect the analysis of her Bivens claim. Fleming did not oppose the stay as long as Jusino’s pending motion to dismiss was held in abeyance and the stay did not limit Fleming’s ability to seek discovery concerning her non-Bivens claims.

Ruling

Judge Rita F. Lin granted the motion to stay Fleming’s Bivens claim. The court held Jusino’s motion to dismiss in abeyance because the Supreme Court’s decision could change the relevant analysis. The parties must file a joint status report within 30 days after the Supreme Court issues its decision in Watanabe. The order did not decide Jusino’s motion to dismiss.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.