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 appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT