ILNews

Citing shutdown, federal court stays many civil cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The federal government shutdown has led to a stay of nearly all civil actions in the U.S. courts in Evansville, Indianapolis, New Albany and Terre Haute in which the federal government has an interest.

Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana signed an order Tuesday noting that since appropriations for the Department of Justice ended Sept. 30, furloughs of assistant U.S. attorneys and others resulted in an inability to represent the federal government’s interests.

“A stay of civil litigation in which the United States, is a party is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, and it is in the interests of justice to stay civil cases, including bankruptcy cases, in which the United States is a party pending resolution of the lapse in appropriations by Congress,” according to Young’s issue granted at the government’s request.

The stay also applies to Social Security cases and all non-criminal cases and all civil matters to which the government is a party except habeas corpus proceedings under Title 28, and to 22 cases specifically identified in the order.

Young said Wednesday the order affects about 400 cases and mirrors actions being taken by chief judges in districts around the country following requests from the Department of Justice.

“A lot of their attorneys have been furloughed,” Young said of assistant U.S. attorneys who chiefly handle civil matters. He said the stay of cases should be the only step the District Court will have to take in response to the shutdown unless it becomes protracted.

“The criminal docket will move and proceed at a normal fashion until the point we would run out of money for jurors,” Young said, noting that’s not projected to happen for several months.

Jill Julian, chief of the civil division for the office of the U.S. attorney for the Southern District, said five of eight assistant U.S. attorneys in the division were furloughed last week, but one was recalled after Young denied the request to stay habeas cases.

Additionally, Julian said eight of 12 support staff employees have been furloughed as a result of the shutdown. The limited staff will continue docketing cases and reviewing new actions in the interim.

“It does disrupt what we’re used to,” she said. “Everybody here is committed to doing the best job they can on a day-to-day basis. We’re trying to make it so when other folks come back we’re able to go on and fulfill our responsibilities.”

Julian noted that even in cases where federal attorneys were available, in some instances their government agency contacts also have been furloughed, making information sharing difficult.

Separately, Southern District Clerk Laura Briggs issued a statement Wednesday that said except for cases stayed by Young’s order, the work of the court will continue as usual.

Briggs noted that the federal judiciary is expected to exhaust all funding sometime next week without a continuing resolution passed by Congress and signed by the president.

“However, even in this phase, the normal processing of all criminal and civil cases will continue,” according to the statement. “New cases can be filed. Criminal and civil hearings and conferences will take place. Jury and bench trials will proceed. CM/ECF will be operational, and Orders will be processed. The Courthouses of the Southern District will be open.”

Briggs said the commitment to keep the courts functioning even if funding is exhausted means some court staffers may have to work without pay.

She said the Southern District hasn’t had to make any personnel adjustments due to the shutdown, though that as a result of the sequester earlier this year that triggered automatic spending cuts, the courts eliminated seven positions.

Barnes & Thornburg LLP partner John Maley said federal court practitioners with cases being stayed should have received notice, and the order isn’t likely to result in much confusion.

“It has to happen,” Maley said of the stay, since many of the U.S. attorneys handling civil  cases have been furloughed. He said it could become a scheduling challenge if the shutdown stays cases for a period of a couple of weeks or more.

“I don’t believe this is Earth-shattering in any respect,” Maley said. “It’s unfortunate.”

Young echoed that sentiment. “It’s unfortunate that the court staff, judges and everyone involved has to spend so much time dealing with these issues that have been caused by the shutdown. We all have many other things that we should and could be working on, but this shutdown and the issues that arise from the shutdown are causing a lot of folks to spend a lot of time on them,” he said.

No similar orders had been issued for federal courts in the Northern District of Indiana as of Wednesday afternoon.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT