Garry v. Johnston
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:18-cv-03447
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Garry v. Johnston, Judge Leung denied a stay but partly granted and partly denied an extension request.
Shane P. Garry’s case was not paused, but he received additional time to supplement his response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss; the defendants received time to file a supplemental reply.
What happened
In Garry v. Johnston, Shane P. Garry, who was representing himself, asked the court to pause his case until an appeal in a related matter was resolved. He also asked for more time to respond to the defendants’ request to dismiss his amended complaint.
The court denied the request to pause the case because Garry did not explain how the appeal was connected to his case or show that a pause was necessary. The court granted his request for more time in part and denied it in part, allowing him until May 13, 2019, to file a supplemental response and the defendants until May 28, 2019, to file a supplemental reply.
Judge Tony N. Leung ordered that the defendants’ dismissal request would then be considered submitted without a hearing, after which the court would issue a report and recommendation.
The detailed version
- Garry v. Johnston · No. 0:18-cv-03447
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Apr. 18, 2019
Background
Shane P. Garry, appearing without a lawyer, filed a motion asking the court to stay, or pause, these proceedings until an appeal in a related matter was decided. Garry cited proceedings involving Karsjens v. Piper and argued that moving forward could be detrimental before that appeal was resolved. The defendants opposed the stay.
Garry also sent a letter requesting an extension of time to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss his first amended complaint. He sought time to confer with a volunteer lawyer through the Pro Se Project. Garry later filed an opposition memorandum but stated that he had not yet been able to confer with counsel and that his filing did not withdraw his extension request.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that it has authority to manage the timing of cases, but the person seeking a stay must show why one is necessary. The court found that the exact basis for Garry’s requested stay was unclear. It noted that the earlier appellate decision Garry cited had already been resolved, and that Garry might instead have been referring to another pending appeal. But Garry did not connect the issues in his case to that pending appeal and therefore did not meet his burden to show that a stay was appropriate.
The court allowed additional briefing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It gave Garry until May 13, 2019, to file a supplemental memorandum and the defendants until May 28, 2019, to file a supplemental reply.
Ruling
Judge Tony N. Leung ordered that Garry’s motion to stay was denied. Garry’s letter request for an extension of time was granted in part and denied in part. The court stated that, after the supplemental filings, the defendants’ motion to dismiss would be deemed submitted and the court would issue a report and recommendation based on the written filings, without a hearing. The order did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.