Via an order he entered right before the Fifth Circuit stayed his ruling, he still imagines that he can require the complaint to be formally answered (by various federal agencies), and that he may order more discovery to be taken, of even more federal agencies. . . even though his appellate panel has effectively told him (ordered him, actually) to sit still.
Terrence A. Doughty would be a pure fool not to accept the Defendant's position here. But if he wishes to be told (again!) that he cannot apparently even read the law properly. . . he may press on, alone. Here's that bit:
. . .If an appellate court concludes that any or all of the [States: Louisiana and Missouri] Plaintiffs lack Article III standing, then there would be no justification for any discovery pertaining to the allegations raised by those Plaintiffs: “[W]ithout proper jurisdiction, a court cannot proceed at all.” See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 84 (1998). For this reason, courts in the Fifth Circuit regularly stay discovery in analogous situations where the threshold question of Article III standing remains outstanding. See, e.g., Johnson v. Ashmore, No. 3:15-CV-2475-K (BF), 2016 WL 8453918, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2016) (“The Court finds that a stay of discovery is proper until. . . preliminary questions” about the court’s subject matter jurisdiction “are decided.”). . . .
Under these circumstances, requiring Defendants to answer each of the 584 paragraphs in Plaintiffs’ 165-page Complaint would impose a significant burden on Defendants for no apparent litigation purpose. The Court should waive Defendants’ obligation to answer. . . .
Now you know -- out, grinning.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment