UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
v. ) No. xx-3027
)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, JR. )
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
APPELLANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A STAY
PENDING APPEAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S
MARCH 6, 2001 ORDER PERMITTING THE
GOVERNMENT TO FORCIBLY MEDICATE APPELLANT
AND JOINT REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Defendant-appellant, xxxxxxxxxxx, respectfully submits this unopposed motion for a stay pending appeal of the district court's March 6, 2001 order permitting the government to medicate Mr. xxxxxxxx against his will. The district court stayed its order until March 19, 2001, at 5:00 p.m.
This case, involving the same issue as the present appeal, was previously before this court, resulting in the opinion in United States v. xxxxxxxx, 206 F.3d 9 (D.C. Cir. 2000)(per curiam). (1) In that opinion, this court reversed the district court's order allowing the involuntary medication of Mr. xxxxxxxx, and remanded for further proceedings before the district court.
Pursuant to this court's remand, the district court held a four-day hearing in July, 2000, and a further hearing on November 15, 2000. The district court issued its opinion on March 6, 2001, again authorizing the involuntary medication of Mr. xxxxxxxx.
Mr. xxxxxxxx filed an appeal of this order on March 9, 2001, and respectfully requests this court grant a further stay of the district court's order, until the conclusion of the current appeal. Based on the criteria set forth in Circuit Rule 8(a), appellant submits that this is an appropriate case for the Court to enter a stay pending an interlocutory appeal. This Court has set forth the test for granting a stay pending appeal:
The requirements for a stay are well-established. In deciding whether to order equitable relief, a court must consider 1) whether the petitioner is likely to prevail on the merits of his appeal, 2) whether, without the stay, the petitioner will be irreparably injured, and 3) whether issuance of a stay will substantially harm other parties interested in the proceedings, and 4) wherein lies the public interest, Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958). Each of these requirements may, of course, be applied flexibly according to the unique circumstances of each case. Thus, for example, where the latter three factors strongly favor interim relief, this court has required only that the petitioner demonstrate a "substantial case on the merits," even if ultimate success is not a mathematical probability. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Comm'n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.3d 841, 843 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
McSurely v. McClellan, 697 F.2d 309, 317 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
The parties disagree about the application of this test. For example, the government does not believe that appellant is likely to prevail on appeal. It also notes that the crimes charged took place in July 1998, and submits that the public interest favors bringing this case to trial in the near future. Nevertheless, the government recognizes that this appeal presents important issues which deserve careful consideration. Under all the circumstances, the government does not oppose the stay. (2) It does, however, hope for expedited resolution of the appeal.
Because this is the second interlocutory appeal of this issue, the parties have agreed that expedited briefing is appropriate, and respectfully request that the court expedite this appeal. Transcripts of the proceedings before the district court have previously been prepared.
The parties propose the following expedited briefing schedule, if acceptable to the court:
Brief for Appellant April 3, 2001
Brief for Appellee April 20, 2001
Appellant's Reply Brief (if any) April 27, 2001
The parties also respectfully request that the court hear oral argument as soon as feasible after the briefing, if possible in the month of May
CONCLUSION
Appellant respectfully requests that the court
grant the unopposed motion for a stay of the district court's order pending appeal. The
parties respectfully request that the joint motion to expedite the appeal be granted.
A.J. KRAMER
Federal Public Defender
Counsel for Appellant
625 Indiana Ave., NW
Suite 550
Washington, DC 20004
JOHN R. FISHER
Assistant United States Attorney
Counsel for Appellee
Office of the United States Attorney
for the District of Columbia
555 Fourth Street, NW, Room 8104
Washington, DC 20001
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing
Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and Joint Request for Expedited Briefing Schedule was
delivered by hand to counsel for appellee, John R. Fisher, Assistant United States
Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Room 8104,
Washington, D.C. 2001 this 13th day of March, 2001.
A.J. KRAMER
Federal Public Defender
1. Another interlocutory appeal in this case, United States v. xxxxxxxx, 194 F.3d 145 (D.C. Cir. 1999), involved an issue that is not relevant to the present appeal.
2. During the previous appeal of this issue, this court granted a stay pending appeal, which was likewise not opposed by the government. A copy of this court's previous stay is attached to this motion.