United States v. United States District Court , 875 F.3d 1177 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                                                       FILED
    FOR PUBLICATION
    NOV 21 2017
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                  MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    In re: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;               No.   17-72917
    DONALD J. TRUMP; U.S.
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND                         D.C. Nos.   3:17-cv-05211-WHA
    SECURITY; ELAINE C. DUKE,                                  3:17-cv-05235-WHA
    ______________________________                             3:17-cv-05329-WHA
    3:17-cv-05380-WHA
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;                                  3:17-cv-05813-WHA
    DONALD J. TRUMP; U.S.                          Northern District of California,
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND                         San Francisco
    SECURITY; ELAINE C. DUKE, in her
    official capacity as Acting Secretary of the
    Department of Homeland Security,               ORDER
    Petitioners,
    v.
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
    CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO,
    Respondent,
    REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
    CALIFORNIA; JANET NAPOLITANO,
    In her official capacity as President of the
    University of California; STATE OF
    CALIFORNIA; STATE OF MAINE;
    STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF
    MARYLAND; CITY OF SAN JOSE;
    DULCE GARCIA; MIRIAM GONZALEZ
    AVILA; VIRIDIANA CHABOLLA
    MENDOZA; NORMA RAMIREZ;
    COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA;
    SERVICE EMPLOYEES
    INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 521;
    JIRAYUT LATTHIVONGSKORN;
    SAUL JIMENEZ SUAREZ,
    Real Parties in Interest.
    Before: WARDLAW, GOULD, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    Before the court is the government’s emergency motion for a stay of our
    order of November 16, 2017, which denied the government’s petition for a writ of
    mandamus and lifted a temporary stay that we had previously imposed. As the
    order denying mandamus relief was effective immediately upon its issuance, see
    Ellis v. U.S. Dist. Court, 
    360 F.3d 1022
    , 1023 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc),
    jurisdiction now lies with the district court, and not with this court. Compare
    Daimler-Benz Aktiengesellschaft v. U.S. Dist. Court, 
    805 F.2d 340
    , 341–42 (10th
    Cir. 1986) (ordering a stay of district court proceedings before any order denying
    or granting mandamus had issued). If the government seeks further relief from this
    court, it must do so in a new petition for mandamus. The government’s emergency
    motion for a stay is therefore DISMISSED.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-72917

Citation Numbers: 875 F.3d 1177

Judges: Wardlaw, Gould, Watford

Filed Date: 11/21/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024