James v. The State University of New York
- Katharine Parker
- 1:22-cv-04856
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In James v. The State University of New York, Judge Parker said an interlocutory appeal did not stay the case and directed James to proceed.
Jeremy Allan James and The State University of New York; the order addressed whether the district-court case would be paused during James’s interlocutory appeal and set deadlines for continuing the case.
What happened
In James v. The State University of New York, Jeremy Allan James continued to argue that his case was paused because he had appealed an earlier ruling before the case ended. The court said the appeal did not automatically pause the case, and the appeals court had not ordered a stay.
The court noted that it had already considered a stay and found that one was not justified because James had not shown a strong likelihood of winning his appeal or serious harm without a stay. An email from the appeals court’s Pro Se Unit told James to send any stay request to the district court; it was not a stay order.
Judge Katharine H. Parker directed James to attend the April 10, 2023 case-management conference, where the court would discuss moving forward with discovery. She also reminded him that his opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss was due April 12, 2023, warning that the court would treat the motion as unopposed if he did not file a response.
The detailed version
- James v. The State University of New York · No. 1:22-cv-04856
- Katharine Parker
- Apr. 5, 2023
Background
Jeremy Allan James continued to assert in recent filings that the action was stayed because of his interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal taken before the district court has finished the case. The court had previously explained that such an appeal does not automatically stay the district-court proceedings. James did not provide an order from the Second Circuit staying the case. Instead, he provided an email from the Second Circuit’s Pro Se Unit stating that any stay request needed to be sent to the district court.
Court’s Reasoning
The court explained that deciding whether to stay proceedings while an interlocutory appeal is pending is within the district court’s discretion. It noted that the district court had already considered a stay in this action and found that no stay was warranted. According to the order, James had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his appeal or the possibility of irreparable injury without a stay.
Directions and Disposition
The order did not state that the action was stayed. It directed James to attend the April 10, 2023 case-management conference, where the court would discuss moving forward with discovery, which James had repeatedly requested. The court also reminded him that his opposition to the State University of New York’s motion to dismiss was due April 12, 2023. If he failed to submit an opposition brief by that deadline, the court would assume the motion was unopposed and decide it based only on the defendant’s moving papers. Judge Katharine H. Parker signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.